Nutritional Labelling

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether sufficient progress is being made towards the introduction of a legal requirement for all pre-packed foodstuffs sold to carry nutritional labelling.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the European Commission has indicated that it plans to propose revisions to the nutrition labelling directive in 2003. The Food Standards Agency is pressing the Commission to introduce compulsory nutrition labelling for all foods and a clearer format for nutrition information.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that this has been a very frustrating time for the FSHA. It is outrageous that British consumers should be denied the benefits of nutrition labelling by the EU. Does the Minister agree that it must have been frustration that led the FSHA to make the silly suggestion that menus should carry nutritional information? Does he further agree that this would be impossible, impractical and unnecessary?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree that we want to see progress made in relation to accurate information on labelling. The FSA will continue its efforts to encourage the European Union to act as quickly as possible. As to the question of information on menus, I am advised that the chief executive of the Food Standards Agency informed the agency's board on 14th November that, contrary to reports in the media, the agency had not called for catering outlets and restaurants to list the calorie contents of their dishes. He explained that people are entitled to information when they eat out, but that it should be practical and meaningful and offer consumers real choices.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that I have previously raised the issue of celiac disease? People who have this condition have to stay on a gluten-free diet for the rest of their lives. My noble friend said that progress is being made—he is correct; some shops are doing quite well—but does he not agree that much more needs to be done by superstores and all kinds of outlets? This is a problem of immense importance.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The EU has published some proposals in this area which will help, but it is taking time to bring them to a successful conclusion. It would be of benefit to retailers if more information was given because the public would have greater confidence. Retailers providing such information would probably find that more customers came to their shops.

Lord Richard: My Lords, will my noble friend discourage the practice of some restaurants of putting the calorie content of their dishes next to the entries on the menu? Some of us find it a little intimidating.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, nothing must get in the way of a noble Lord and a good dinner. I certainly agree that we need to be proportionate. It is right to give information to the public, but we do not want to discourage people from going out to eat in a perfectly acceptable way. We need to get the right balance.

Lord Elton: My Lords, will the Minister take any opportunity he has to encourage the various trades when they publish this, for some of us, essential as well as useful information, to do so in a print that people of a certain age are able to read?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The same point can be made in relation to medicine labelling. The Government are pursuing the matter.

Baroness Warnock: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be helpful if guidance were given to restaurants that they should always provide gluten-free alternatives? The problem of the celiac condition is increasing and it is very frustrating for sufferers when they go out to eat and are told that there is no such thing as a gluten-free dish.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness's point. We need to be proportionate. We need to avoid insisting on restaurants providing extensive information. On the other hand, many restaurants find that if they provide some of the information to which the noble Baroness referred they get more custom. It can be seen to be a commercial advantage.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, will the Minister underline the point that the importance of these regulations is that they should be uniform in presentation and, as my noble friend said, in a print which is recognisable? This will enable comparisons to be made readily and easily.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. It is also important that when a claim is made for a product—for example, that it has a low salt content—the consumer can have confidence that it is indeed a low salt product.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is it not important to avoid taking steps that might drive smaller restaurants and manufacturers out of business? There used to be a saying, caveat emptor, but that seems to have been completely forgotten nowadays.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, let me assure the House again that there is no proposal within the EU or this country for information about the nutritional content of meals having to be available on the menu. That must be right. Equally, whether the restaurant is a small outlet or part of a large chain, it may be to its advantage to provide some information. I know from the comment made by my noble friend about gluten-free food that retailers who make it clear that a product is gluten-free will find that shoppers are more likely to use them.

Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some processed foods contain high quantities of salt, sometimes sugar and sometimes both, and are labelled in such a way as to suggest that they are as healthy and nutritious as fresh fruit and vegetables? Without giving the brand name, a particular variety of spaghetti and sausages has a label on it which, I understand, states "one portion of fruit or vegetables"? Is not that potentially misleading to the consumer? Should it not be strongly discouraged?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is potentially misleading to the consumer. That is why we need better regulation in this area. The important point is that if a claim is made for a product the consumer can have confidence that the product meets that claim. That is the purpose of the current discussions on proposed EU legislation.

Iraq

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their current policy towards Iraq.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, our policy remains to ensure that Iraq complies with its obligations under relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions, including by giving up its weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations Security Council, through its unanimous adoption of resolution 1441, has served notice on the Iraqi regime that it must now give up those weapons or face serious consequences.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. We all hope that, in the words of Hans Blix last week, a war can still be averted. However, does the Minister agree that the use of force against Iraq opens up the possibility of an on-going military and political entanglement and that the quicksands of Middle Eastern politics dictate that any decision to use force against Iraq must also include a strategy for the long-term, post-war stability of Iraq and, indeed, of the region as a whole? What assurances, therefore, can the Minister give that Britain will not enter into a conflict against Iraq without a clear, effective and well-planned exit strategy?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's quote of what Hans Blix said. There has been no decision to launch any military action and we very much hope that we will avert so doing. The government of Iraq is a matter for the Iraqi people. We believe that the people of Iraq deserve a better government, one based on the rule of law, respect for human rights, economic freedom and prosperity. We welcome the external opposition's role in discussing the future of Iraq and in debating issues such as democracy, that cannot be discussed in Iraq. Government officials from the United Kingdom meet regularly with external Iraqi opposition members to remain informed on their thinking. As at the end of the Gulf War, Britain would remain at the forefront of efforts to help the Iraqi people into the future.

Lord Judd: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the United Nations resolution is to disarm Iraq and that that is the objective? Should it become necessary with UN endorsement to deploy force, can she clarify whether it will be the responsibility of the Secretary-General or the United States to assemble the necessary military operation?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can confirm that the objective is to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. In the case of a material breach of UNSCR 1441, the matter would be referred immediately to the Security Council. At that point, there would be a discussion about the most suitable way forward. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me, but it is not possible to discuss at this juncture precisely what would happen next; that is to say, whether there would be a united determination on the part of the Security Council to go forward or whether there would be what has been termed a coalition of the willing to do so.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister take her answer to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, one step further? In the event of an allegation of a material breach not made by UNMOVIC, who would be responsible for interpreting whether there had been a material breach? Does it depend on that statement coming, at least in the first instance, from the UNMOVIC inspectors?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as regards who would be responsible for determining that material breach, operational paragraph 4 of resolution 1441 states that a material breach arises where there are,
	"false statements or omissions in the declarations . . . and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution".
	Of course it cannot give an exhaustive list of what amounts to a material breach. It would be a question of judgment at the time. The noble Baroness is quite right that it might be referred by the inspectorate. But, equally, it might be referred by a member of the United Nations Security Council. There would be an immediate meeting, when no doubt there would be a discussion about how serious such a breach was.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has given way twice already.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very much obliged. I hope my question is worthy of the privilege. Does the Minister agree that it is wholly inappropriate for this House to seek to advise Her Majesty's Government as to what they should do in wholly unpredictable circumstances? Does she agree that the essence of the problem is that these weapons of mass destruction, one way or another, shall be destroyed?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord said. Perhaps the words "wholly inappropriate" are a little sweeping. In a democracy such as we enjoy in this country, naturally Members of your Lordships' House will wish to discuss various eventualities. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the circumstances are unpredictable; we are unable to exhaust every possibility of what might arise. Therefore, tying the Government's hands completely in this respect only helps Saddam Hussein himself.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I can ask yet another version of the question by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. If there is a material breach or non-compliance, or if Saddam Hussein lies, as is highly likely, does UN Resolution 1441 allow us to go to war thereafter or is a further resolution on top of a further meeting with the Security Council required before that procedure can take place?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 does not stipulate that there has to be a second Security Council resolution to authorise military action. Such a stipulation was never tabled as part of UNSCR 1441, which has enjoyed the unanimous support of the Security Council. My right honourable friend has made clear that the preference of the British Government in the event of a material breach is that there should be a second resolution. But we are not about rewriting UNSCR 1441. It says what it says, and it does not say that such a second resolution would be necessary.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend wish to take this opportunity to express the Government's complete confidence in Mr Hans Blix and his team of inspectors? Does she agree that attempts in certain parts of the United States to undermine his authority are most unhelpful?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have complete confidence not only in Mr Hans Blix but also in Mr El Baradei, who also has a crucial role as part of the IAEA.

Air Traffic: Bilateral Agreements

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Following the decision of the European Court of Justice on 8th November that bilateral agreements on air traffic between individual member states and the United States are illegal, what action they plan to take to support the European Commission in future negotiations on behalf of the European Union to ensure equitable rights for European Union registered airlines to operate to and within the United States.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the court found the UK's agreement with the United States to be in conflict with Community law only in so far as it favours UK airlines compared with other carriers. We expect existing arrangements to remain in force until a way forward is decided between member states and the Commission. Giving the Commission a mandate for negotiations with the United States is one option for consideration. We will consider carefully where the balance of UK interest lies.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that full answer. In the meantime, while all this is being resolved, will he inform the House of the status of current negotiations between the UK and the United States, particularly in relation to cargo airlines? Will he confirm that US cargo airlines will not be given any fifth freedom rights to come into this country unless there is a reciprocal arrangement for UK cargo airlines in the United States?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government's position is that the United Kingdom will not agree any new bilaterals or amend existing bilaterals until the issue has been resolved between member states and the Commission.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government's first priority in this matter must be the safeguarding of British commercial and passenger interests rather than the wider European interests, which do not always coincide?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said in my first Answer that:
	"We will consider carefully where the balance of UK interest lies".
	That does not mean necessarily that it might not lie in some European action.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend conclude that a battle between British interests and those of Europe is inevitable? What is the alternative? Can Britain go its own way?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not come to that conclusion. The matter is now with the Commission and it will be raised again at a meeting with transport Ministers at the end of next week. As I said, giving the Commission a mandate for negotiations is one option for consideration but it is not the only one. The continuation of bilaterals in an amended form is another option.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, will the noble Lord reflect further on his answer to the very important supplementary question from his noble friend Lord Berkeley. Can he, or can he not, give an assurance that no fifth freedom rights will be granted to US cargo carriers in the absence of any reciprocal rights from the US authorities for UK carriers?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the Answer that I gave was very precise. We are not proposing to agree new bilaterals or to amend existing ones. That is not to say that the existing Bermuda II agreement is perfect in every respect; that is far from being the case. However, we will not make any further changes until the issues that are the subject of the Question have been resolved.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I may not have made myself clear. The applications concerned will be made within the context of the existing Bermuda agreements and we are asking for an assurance that no such further permits will be issued in light of the circumstances that I have described.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they would involve amendments to the existing Bermuda II agreements, and no such amendments will be made.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, if the Government agree that the European Union would be good at running a common air traffic policy, would they be prepared to share with your Lordships' House the reasons why they believe that the corrupt and unsackable octopus in Brussels will be any better at running this common policy than it has been at running all of the other common European policies?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, stripped of the rhetoric, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asks for an assurance that any policy decisions that we make will be shared with Parliament. He can have that assurance.

Allotments

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are proposing to take to remind local councils of their statutory duty to provide allotments, in view of the recent decision not to include a specific mention of this in Planning Policy Guidance Note 17.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 requires local authorities to make provision for all types of open space that may be of public value. The Government expect that by implementing this guidance, local authorities should make adequate provision for allotments.
	We have also published guides for plot holders and local authorities that provide comprehensive advice on all aspects of allotment provision and management.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the bodies representing allotment holders were led to believe that there would be a specific mention in the document of allotments as such, and that they are very disappointed that there is not? Do the Government accept that there is enormous value in the provision of allotments? They contribute to the health and welfare of communities.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree with all that, except for the first part; nobody was led to believe that there would be anything in PPG17. The draft of Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 restated the Government's criteria for the disposal of allotments; it did not relate to the provision of allotments. It was not repeated in the final issue in February this year. It stated existing policy. We were trying to shorten the document; my department is trying to shorten all of the planning guidance documents. There has been no policy change in respect of allotments. They are a joy of life for hundreds of thousands of plot holders in this country of all ages and both sexes.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is enormous pressure on local authorities to grant permission for the development of allotment sites, to such an extent that some local authorities are refusing to allow new plot holders on to sites on which planning permission is being sought or is impending? Will he give an assurance that when the Secretary of State exercises his powers under Section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925—that involves the power to grant or withhold permission for alternative development of allotments—he will take into account the fact that local authorities have jumped the gun in that way?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, local authorities have a duty to provide facilities that the public require. I most certainly will give the assurance that Ministers will look at the situation regarding statutory allotments, which require ministerial permission under Section 8, as the noble Lord said. For the avoidance of doubt, it is worth stating on the record the situation regarding previously developed land qualifying as brownfield land, in case anyone tries that. We want to secure the systematic development of brownfield land in this country. Annex C of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on housing contains a definition of previously developed land that includes the following excerpt:
	"The definition excludes land and buildings that are currently in use for agricultural or forestry purposes, and land in built-up areas which has not been developed previously . . . e.g. parks, recreation grounds, and allotments—even though these areas may contain certain urban features".
	In other words, one cannot use the excuse of claiming that an allotment, even a disused one, is suitable and right for brownfield development.

Lord Rea: My Lords, do the Government now recognise that fruit and vegetables are an important health benefit and that exercise is protective against coronary heart disease? Will that strengthen their resolve to do what they can to assist local authorities in resisting developers and promoting the wider use and provision of allotments?

Lord Rooker: Most certainly, my Lords. As I said earlier, we are about to conduct a survey to establish exactly the current number of plots and allotments following the publication at the urban summit recently of the document, Living Places: Cleaner, Safer, Greener. We will report in due course on those numbers. The last time that the numbers were surveyed—in 1996—there were 296,000 plots, which is a very large number, although it is nothing like the number of plots in the 1950s and 1960s. It is worth adding that some 35 per cent of plot holders are under the age of 50. I came across a couple of acquaintances of mine in their late 20s, who last week applied for a plot in the Borough of Croydon. The purpose of allotment gardens—this also involves their definition—is to be mainly cultivated by the occupier for the production of vegetable and fruit crops. Other activities can also be permitted. That is all good, healthy exercise, which is carried out in open space.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., which almost certainly means after the Motion to be moved by my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House on September sittings, my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being presented as a Private Notice Question in the other place on the fire dispute. Following that, my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the NATO Summit in Prague. So far as I know, that concludes the number of Motions and Statements being made by my noble and learned friend for one day.

Administration and Works Committee

Information Committee

Refreshment Committee

Works of Art Committee

European Union Committee

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the five Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider administrative services, security, works and accommodation, within financial limits approved by the House Committee;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:
	L. Cope of Berkeley, L. Craig of Radley, B. Darcy de Knayth, L. Evans of Parkside, L. Grocott, Bp. Guildford, L. Kirkham, B. McFarlane of Llandaff, B. Massey of Darwen, L. Phillips of Sudbury, L. Roper;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time.
	Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider information and communications services, including the Library and the Parliamentary Archives, within financial limits approved by the House Committee;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:
	L. Avebury, L. Baker of Dorking (Chairman), L. Burnham, E. Erroll, B. Gale, B. Gardner of Parkes, B. Goudie, L. Hobhouse of Woodborough, L. Lucas, L. Methuen, L. Mitchell, E. Sandwich, B. Wilkins;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time.
	Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the refreshment services provided for the House, within financial limits approved by the House Committee;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:
	L. Ahmed, L. Burnham, L. Colwyn (Chairman), V. Falkland, L. Geddes, L. Grocott, B. Harris of Richmond, L. Palmer, B. Pitkeathley, B. Rendell of Babergh, Ly. Saltoun of Abernethy, B. Strange;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time.
	Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to administer the House of Lords Works of Art Collection Fund; and to consider matters relating to works of art in the House of Lords, within financial limits approved by the House Committee;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:
	L. Cobbold, L. Eames, L. Gavron, B. Hilton of Eggardon (Chairman), L. Luke, L. Redesdale, L. Rees, L. Rees-Mogg, L. Tordoff, B. Trumpington, B. Warwick of Undercliffe;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time.
	Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Shutt of Greetland be appointed a member of the Select Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Summer Recess

Lord Williams of Mostyn: rose to move to resolve, That it is the opinion of this House that, subject to the requirements of business, in 2003 the Summer Recess should begin not later than the middle of July and the House should sit for two weeks in September.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Group on Working Practices was eager to achieve a more balanced parliamentary year. We had a substantial and significant—and lengthy—debate on those proposals. The report included the following statement:
	"We believe that the House of Lords should also be willing to sit in September, and we recommend that in return the House should have longer recesses at Christmas, Easter or Whitsun, or rise earlier for the summer recess".
	That was part of a package which I believe it is fair to say was fully debated and had substantial approval from noble Lords.
	The Procedure Committee said in its report:
	"We believe that the House will wish to express an opinion on this possibility"—
	that is, September sittings—
	"before a change with such important effects".
	The Procedure Committee recommended that any such proposal should be put before the House early in the Session; that is what we are now doing.
	On 31st October, it was announced that the Commons will indeed sit in September. This Motion therefore proposes—I hope that your Lordships will agree—that the House should trade, as it were, the latter part of July for two sitting weeks in September. That is a straight exchange; it would not in itself make the total number of sitting days in the year either greater or smaller than we have been used to.
	There has been quite considerable support, which I shall cover as briefly as I can. The Conservative Party policy document, Delivering a Strengthened Parliament, said:
	"We support the proposal that Parliament should normally rise in mid July, return at the start of September, and rise again only for the length of the Party Conference season".
	The right honourable Mr Forth said very recently in another place:
	"We ... enthusiastically endorse sittings in September because it will give the House more opportunity to hold the Government to account instead of giving the Government the free ride that they have traditionally had for two and a half months during the summer".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/02; col. 712.]
	During the debate on 21st May this year, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, most helpfully said:
	"My view is that if another place starts to sit in September, it will be very difficult for us not to go down that route also, particularly if it is tied in with an earlier rising in July".—[Official Report, 21/5/02; col. 653.]
	Perhaps I may also mention the equally helpful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who has very substantial experience in another place, as well as that derived during his time as Leader of this House:
	"We did not discuss longer recesses at Christmas, Easter and Whitsun, However, we did agree that, if the House of Commons rose at the beginning of July and returned in September, we should be wise to follow suit".—[Official Report, 21/5/02; col. 719.]
	That is the spirit in which I am putting forward this Motion. It is an aspect of something very fully discussed and carried with a very significant majority. I ought to emphasise that we all came to the conclusion on that earlier occasion that this would be for a trial period only. We can always review the situation if your Lordships are agreeable.
	I should like to make a few final comments. I am sorry to say that it was not known to me that Royal Assent is not capable of being given unless both Houses are sitting. Therefore, if we did not generally coincide our Sittings with the House of Commons, there would be that difficulty. Your Lordships would lose the ineffable joy of the possibility of ping-pong.
	More significantly, I make the following suggestion quite seriously. If we were to decline to sit in September to coincide generally—I put it no higher—with the House of Commons, I believe that the representation of this House and its reputation outside would bring about the suggestion that we were not willing to do our full work. That suggestion would be wrong, because we work harder than the House of Commons; and, indeed, harder than any other Chamber in the discovered universe. However, the representation outside Parliament would suggest that we were not willing to work. That would be very wrong; it would be very unfair; and it would be damaging to our reputation. I commend the Motion to the House.
	Moved to resolve, That it is the opinion of this House that, subject to the requirements of business, in 2003 the Summer Recess should begin not later than the middle of July and the House should sit for two weeks in September.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I do not wish to make a ceilidh about it, but I have a very short point to make about the giving of Royal Assent. Surely this House sits without the House of Commons being in session? As we sat for two weeks in October when the Commons were not sitting, it seems to me that the Minister is being a little invidious in saying that the two Chambers must sit at the same time.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if I had said that it would have been wrong. But, of course, I did not say it. My suggestion to the House is that we should "generally coincide" with the sittings of the other place. If we do not and there is a two-week period when we are not sitting followed by a further two-week period when the House of Commons is not sitting, that would be a total of four weeks when Royal Assent could not be given. It is an aspect of these proposals. It is not the most important point, but it is a matter that should be borne in mind.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for the way that he has proposed the Motion. He is right to say that the matter was discussed during our deliberations in the Leader's Group on Working Practices. As a result, I know just how keen the noble and learned Lord is to introduce what has become something of a novelty; namely, that this House should sit regularly in September.
	I also, rightly, warned that this would be a controversial decision, and pointed out that there were many different views around the House. That allows me to say that, as far as I can see, there is no politics in this: there is no advantage or disadvantage to the Government or to the Opposition as regards sitting in September, as opposed to the end of July. This is entirely a House matter. Therefore, there will be a free vote from our party. I am sure that that will be replicated in every other part of the House.
	It is important that the issue should be decided this afternoon. We can then put such matters to one side and carry on with our business. It strikes me that there are three issues to be kept in mind. First, if the House is to rise early in July, that may make it marginally more convenient for those of us with younger children, who, at that stage, are already on holiday. However, it will also make it marginally less convenient for those noble Lords who do not have children and who, traditionally, like to take their holidays outside the school holiday period; namely, in September.
	Secondly, if we return early in September, which, I understand, is the Government's proposal, we should consider how that will affect Members of the Front Benches on all sides of the House. When those Members realise that they have difficult—and often complicated—legislation on the horizon, they may have to return a week or 10 days in advance of the sitting in order to lay amendments and carry out all the background work involved. Therefore, far from coming back in early September, they may have to return at the end of August. I wonder what the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has to say in that respect.
	Thirdly, there is the idea advanced in the other place of returning in early September, sitting for two weeks, and then rising again for another three-week period so that Members can address their business at various party conferences. It is widely known in this House that, on the whole, there is not quite the same degree of enthusiasm for visiting party conferences as is the case in the House of Commons. If we consider September sittings, I wonder whether we have to replicate another place exactly. That sort of coming and going—toing and froing—may be more confusing for this House than it is for another place.
	I also gather that the other place will be returning not so much to deal with the detail of scrutiny of government and of legislation but more for general debates, or to deal with issues that have arisen over the summer period. That would be very different in your Lordships' House, where that is an important period of the Session—the latter part—during which we deal with difficult legislation.
	As regards Royal Assent, I understand that the issue is that both Houses must be sitting at the same time in order for Royal Assent to be given. I do not know whether this is guided by legislation, by practice, or by convention; or, indeed, whether it is such an insurmountable difficulty that it cannot be circumvented. After all, it was not so long ago that Royal Assent was always given by a Royal Commission, as is the case at Prorogation. However, that is not so for most Bills during the course of the parliamentary Session. I wonder whether we are entirely wise to rush into this process, given the fact that the other place is undergoing its own experiment. It may prove to be less effective than we all believe.
	As the noble and learned Lord said, this is a hard-working House. I have no idea how the public would view both Houses sitting at different times. From my experience, I can make only the following observation. Very often, your Lordships' House is sitting during the last week of July when the House of Commons has risen. At that time, I believe that public opinion views extremely favourably the work that this House accomplishes.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for moving this Motion. Perhaps I may make a suggestion on a subject on which the noble and learned Lord led with his jaw. The noble and learned Lord might care to issue a business statement at the end of each Session setting out how many hours we have sat, how many days a week we sat, and how much work we accomplished. That would give the world outside a clearer view of the endless hard work carried out in this House and ensure that it is perceived less as some form of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera.
	I turn to the arguments before the House. With its normal extraordinary judiciousness, my party is somewhat divided on the issue. The reasons are as follows. The suggested rising in mid-July and sitting throughout most of September has the great advantage of being family friendly. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed out, it means that people with young children—or, for that matter, grandchildren—can spend more time with them. That is an important consideration for many Members of the House.
	However, there is another clear and important argument to make. I refer to the one mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal; namely, that we should keep more closely in step with another place if we follow its proposals for modernisation. Two real difficulties would arise in that respect. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made a comment that I believe applies more to his party than to mine. He said that there is no huge enthusiasm for party conferences. My party is wildly enthusiastic about party conferences. It hugely enjoys them. There is always an atmosphere of extraordinary comradeship and friendliness and almost no division of opinion. Therefore, members of my party and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who is the greatest decoration of our party conferences because he presides over them, would be very sad if not many people attended them. The difficulty of sitting, rising, sitting again and rising again is also associated with the proposal.
	I want quickly to advance another consideration which concerns those of us who have a great interest in foreign affairs. Real problems are involved in moving to the proposed new pattern. Effectively, it means that one can never visit another country when its own legislature is sitting. That, in turn, immediately weakens the amount of information that people can bring to this House through work that they do in other parts of the world and, not least, through work done in Europe. That is a serious consideration. I believe that many of us can see the extent to which congressional influence in the world has suffered because so few congressmen and women now travel for any length of time to other parts of the world. I simply want to advance that as a thought on the other side of the argument. But I leave it to the extraordinary wisdom of my colleagues in the House to come to the right answer.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, it pains me to differ from the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, especially on House matters. I have great affection and admiration for him but I find myself unable to support his Motion this afternoon. I hope that he will forgive me not only for that but also because I cannot even bring him the comfort of being able to claim that English is not my first language. As a matter of fact, for all practical purposes and despite being partly Italian and partly French, it is my only language. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble and learned Lord and I will remain friends at the conclusion of this debate.
	The statement last Monday by the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms was very helpful. One hopes that it will prove to be a precedent over the years. The only part that I found myself unable to accept was that relating to the Summer Recess. That statement said that the two Houses of Parliament,
	"work best when the sitting patterns . . . run roughly in parallel".
	I agree with that. But the noble Lord went on to add,
	"as has been the case in the past".—[Official Report, 18/11/02; col. 144.]
	That is not quite the case. I am sorry to have to disappoint the noble Lord for I am fond of and respect him as well, but it has been precisely at this time of year—that is, the time around the Summer Recess—that we have tended to be out of line with another place.
	For some years now, we have tended to sit for days—sometimes for a week or so—longer than another place before rising for the Summer Recess. Similarly, we have reassembled earlier than another place. That has been understandable and perfectly proper. It has been partly, if not mainly, because we have to deal with Bills—normally the more controversial ones—which reach us later in the Session after starting in another place. Therefore, not only are we not in parallel with another place at this time of the year; I submit that this is the very time of the year when it is appropriate for the two Chambers to be out of alignment. In case anyone thinks otherwise, of course I appreciate that it is possible for both Chambers to coincide. But I suggest that not only is that not necessary; it is perhaps better and understandable if we do not sit at the same times.
	The Government Chief Whip's statement also indicated that, even under the new proposals for recesses, there is already proposed to be a difference between the two Chambers, as was the case last year. In February next year, another place will be in recess from 13th to 24th February. We shall get,
	"a day or two [probably] during the week beginning 17th February".—[Official Report, 18/11/02; col. 144.]
	I would add to that, "if we are lucky".
	Another important and significant point that has not been raised thus far in the debate in arguing for not resuming in September and then adjourning again until mid-October is the vast annual Summer Recess programme of maintenance and improvement of the palace by the Parliamentary Works Services Directorate. The proposed change would involve two periods of disruption. I suggest that having to take up and put back the floorboards, together with the other disruption caused, on two occasions would make matters very difficult. Such an operation would also be costlier, less efficient and more difficult to control. That is especially the case with regard to the timetable of any of the various contractors whom we commission from time to time.
	We are served splendidly by the Parliamentary Works Services Directorate and the Parliamentary Estates Directorate, as we are by all our staff—the Clerk of the Parliaments' Office, Black Rod's Department and the others as well. Of course, the staff of the Parliamentary Works Services Directorate will say that they could cope. They will cope with any obligations that we lay upon them—we need have no doubt about that. But that is not to say that that is the best, most efficient and least costly way of dealing with these matters. As a former Chairman of Committees, I had direct dealings with the Parliamentary Works Directorate, as it was then called. The staff of that department need to have a good run at such work during the Summer Recess. If at all possible, except when there is an emergency recall, for example, that is the way to get the best out of it.
	As we know, and as has been said already, another place has already decided its views on this matter. I do not know how carefully another place considered the matters concerning parliamentary works. Of course, it is not for us to intervene in the affairs of another place. Each House is free to decide upon and control its own procedures, conduct and operation. But that only serves to emphasise that it is for us to decide on the best way to deal with these matters. I hope that this afternoon your Lordships will decide to keep things as they are.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am conscious that, when we discussed and considered these matters a few months ago, I attracted the reputation of being something of a dinosaur. I shall do my best to dispel that reputation now. The resistance which I then offered to some of the proposals that came before us from the Procedure Committee and, indeed, in the proceedings of the Procedure Committee itself was based on one premise only: the need to ensure that we retain the capacity to hold all governments to account in all circumstances. I do not want to suggest that this issue ranks high in that type of consideration. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal will think again about this proposal.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the need for your Lordships to be involved in overseas visits and other activities outside your Lordships' House during September. I do not suggest that we all need to go away at that time simply to earn our livings or matters of that nature, but overseas visits on foreign policy, defence and other matters can be properly scheduled only in September.
	There is then the consideration referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. This is an old building. Much work needs to be done to it in the Recess and will no doubt continue to need to be done for as far ahead as we can foresee. There is then the question of the staff, who would have to be recalled, perhaps for just two weeks in September at a time when they would otherwise not have to be here and, indeed, when they might be attending upon missions conducted by your Lordships overseas.
	I recognise that it was agreed long ago that this matter would be considered now, early in the Session. There is much merit in that. However, there is also a difficulty. At this stage we do not know where we shall be in the business programme by mid-July or mid-September, so there is still a degree of uncertainty. I agree that the Motion refers to the progress of Business but we are seeking to decide now whether or not we should sit in September.
	I hope that the noble and learned Lord will reflect again upon the Motion. I do not believe it is appropriate at this time. The noble and learned Lord concluded by stating that this is a trial arrangement. It is the case that the detailed arrangements we agreed earlier this year were said to be subject to reconsideration after a couple of years. However, the Motion before us says nothing about a trial. Therefore, I hope that we can disregard the Motion on that account.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I join the dinosaur group in opposing the Motion before us. I do so on the basis that, were it not for the fact that another place wants to alter its arrangements, we would not be discussing the proposal today. The proposal is not for the benefit of Members of this House but for the benefit of Members of the House of Commons, who want to get away early. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that that would be inconvenient to many of your Lordships who want to go away in September to avoid the crowds of children who by September would normally be back in school. That is an important point.
	However, what is important is whether a change would assist us better to do the work of this House. The answer is that it would not. It would be better if we continued our present arrangement to ensure that the proper scrutiny of legislation takes place to a timetable suitable to Members of this House and not to Members of another place.
	The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said that perhaps it would not be right and would be misunderstood by the electorate if we did not sit while the House of Commons sat. That must have been a joke. There have been many occasions, indeed in the last Session, when this House sat on many days when the House of Commons did not. Therefore, presumably people would take the same view of the House of Commons not sitting while the House of Lords sat. That argument does not wash. As has been observed, we have sat without the Commons on many occasions over a number of years.
	I would also make the point that it is only when we sit alone that we get a fair crack of the whip from the press and the BBC. Indeed, "Yesterday in Parliament" and "Today in Parliament" come alive because of the marvellous discussions we have in this House, which are given greater prominence and time than would otherwise be the case. That is perhaps a good reason for sitting more often without the House of Commons.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in a measured speech, suggested that this is not the time to decide this matter; and that perhaps we should have more time to consider it. Does that mean that the matter will be pressed to a vote by the Opposition? I hope it does. Indeed, if so, I should have to support them.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord for not having been present when he moved the Motion. I had what I thought was an extremely good excuse. I opened my party Whip—a document which I read every week with intense interest and excitement—when I first arrived in London this afternoon. I saw four questions tabled on the Order Paper and had no doubt that if I arrived soon after three o'clock I would be in good time. Unfortunately, I missed what I am sure was a most illuminating speech and am sorry for myself as well as for the noble and learned Lord.
	I echo those who said that merely because another place does something, that is not a good reason for us to do the same. I am inclined to a different view. If another place does something without good reason, which it often does, I would rather see us make a point of differing. That is what I should like to see us do on this occasion.
	I listened with great respect, as I always do, to the noble Lord, Lord Boston. I was impressed by the way in which, despite his disagreement with his noble and learned friend, he massaged him as near as he could into a good mood before he put the knife in and said that he would not be able to vote for the Motion. Disguised in all that complimentary and extremely civil language was a solid point which, I feel confident at guessing, has not even been thought of by another place.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested, it is probable that another place has been thinking solely of its own convenience, as is its habit. It is always nudged into thinking of its own convenience by the diabolical mephistophelean cleverness of an Administration which does not always display cleverness. On this kind of matter, the Administration is cunning indeed. Clearly, once again it has persuaded Members of another place how much more convenient it would be for them and has not mentioned the convenience or otherwise to the Government.
	I shall not continue. The rather short, informal way in which we are being slipped into another change is something about which I am wary and do not welcome. Perhaps I may attempt to copy the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Boston, by saying that I hope that nothing I have said today will disturb the happy and friendly relationship I enjoy with the noble and learned Lord.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Peyton graciously apologise to the noble and learned Lord for not having been in his place. I make the same apology because I was not in my place when the noble and learned Lord made his speech. For that I deeply apologise and grovel in sackcloth and ashes before him. I went round like a whirling dervish this morning trying to get things done in order to be here in time to listen to the noble and learned Lord. However, the whirling dervish did not move as quickly as it should, and I apologise. I hope that that will not preclude my adding a few views.
	Like my noble friend Lord Peyton, I regret the idea of making this change. I cannot see that it will do much good for anyone, other than for those—and I can understand this—who wish to go on holiday at the end of July. Of course people have had children for years and years and they somehow manage to go on holiday. I do not know that that is a very good reason, particularly when Members of the House of Commons and indeed your Lordships receive greater emoluments now. My fear is that we will pay everyone, including ourselves, more and more and alter the processes for our own convenience. I do not know that that is a good idea.
	I also think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, is very true. The Palace of Westminster is a huge place. It has to be repaired. Repairs are programmed five years ahead. Everyone knows that one can get a good slice of time in the Summer Recess. If one leaves in July, comes back in September for two weeks and then goes away and comes back again, it really is not the most efficient way to do things.
	Perhaps I may give the noble and learned Lord one small lesson in dynamics. He will know, I am sure, that with two four-inch pipes one does not get nearly so much water out as one does with an eight-inch pipe. In other words, if one goes from July—the noble and learned Lord is worried already; I know that it is not a legal argument—to October there is a good slice of time during which work can be done. If one asks people to come in and out, one will not get nearly so much done and it will be far more expensive.
	I am deeply apprehensive when the noble and learned Lord comes along with a very simple idea that is really just a little modernising of Parliament. I do not think that it is modernising of Parliament; it is unpicking much of what has been done. What we do at the moment in your Lordships' House is to great effect. I do not see that it is necessary for us to alter our times of sitting just because another place has decided to alter its times. I hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Boston, and my noble friend Lord Peyton, said, that the noble and learned Lord will think again, heavily and carefully, about this matter; and that he will conclude that on the whole it is better to leave things as they are and to not make an alteration which momentarily, for some extraordinary reason, he seems to think is a good idea.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I had not intended to take part. I have been listening to the debate with increased disbelief. This is the second Chamber of Parliament. We hear a great deal about the need for Parliament to call the executive to account, with which I entirely agree. Yet we have to consider apparently the convenience of the public works department and of your Lordships' taking holidays in September in order to avoid the children being under their feet as they have gone back to school. It also appears now we should consider the chance of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, appearing on "Today in Parliament".
	The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, says that today is too early to consider this matter. As Chief Whip, I used to get asked questions about the Summer Recess about Christmas-time. Noble Lords would come in and say, "We should like to book our holiday. Can you give us any idea when we might rise for the summer?" I used to say, "Well, I will try to get up by the end of July, but we might have to sit in August" and so on. So the idea that this is too early does not run.
	I think that it would be sensible to have a six-week break—which is what it would be—from the middle of July to the end of August and then to come back to complete the business. I know your Lordships will agree that it is a long haul in this House from Easter until the summer. There is the spring break. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is nodding. It is a long, hard haul for your Lordships. I hope that my noble and learned friend and the Chief Whip will be able to give us a defined date for the break in the summer, which would be in the middle of July. We shall have a six-week break and then come back for two weeks.
	Many important things happen in the Summer Recess. If international and domestic issues arise—perhaps a strike or whatever—and the Commons is sitting and we are not, I wonder what the effect will be on those who observe this House from the outside.

Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is it not the case that if the two Houses sit on separate fortnights, the period during which Parliament itself is able to hold the Government to account is extended by a fortnight? Therefore, if that is our chief aim, that does not chime with the present Motion.
	I have not apologised for being absent because I was present for the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, which was eloquent and almost as persuasive as usual. On this occasion, however, he did not entirely persuade me.

Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. For a week perhaps at the end of July and for a week in October this House sits and the other does not. If the Motion is defeated—if the Motion is put to the vote—it will not be possible to call the executive to account from the middle of July until perhaps the middle of October. The point about the two weeks in September is that we do have a chance to call the executive to account if there are important issues that arise at that time.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House tell us what he thinks a proper period of trial would be? It appears to me that one year is enough. We could then look at the situation.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to that point immediately because it is also the point of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. The Motion is carefully crafted to limit itself to 2003 only.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords—

Lord Jopling: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that there has been a contribution from this side at all.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.

A noble Lord: He is an independent.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords—

Lord Jopling: My Lords, unlike some of my noble friends, I was in the Chamber to listen to the speech of the Leader of the House. I would hate to say to my noble friends that I was convinced by his speech because I came into the Chamber inclined to agree with him anyway, having just read the Motion.
	I confess, having been around this building for 38 years, that I have always thought it a nonsense that in a normal year Parliament has not sat for 10 or sometimes 11 weeks and has not been able to hold the executive to account at all. I therefore came into your Lordships' House today rather inclined to support the Motion.
	Often both Houses are recalled in September. I do not have the statistics, but as that is happening more and more in my experience it would be more convenient for us to know that we were coming back for two weeks in September with due warning, compared with coming back perhaps for a day or two days in September in some years without any warning at all. I should have thought that that would be convenient.
	I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Boston, on one particular matter: he talked about the disruption to the summer contractors. All I can say to him is that the contractors seem to be able to put the House together again quite quickly when we are recalled in an emergency during the middle of the Summer Recess. In any case, having, as I say, watched these things for a number of years, I am rather inclined to have the Summer Recess broken up because I have grieved over many years at the totally ridiculous waste of money which those contractors are led to spend on replacing carpets and other fittings in the House which I think a normal person would say were perfectly functional. A huge amount of money is wasted in that way. But that is a different point.
	It is not in every year—if the noble and learned Lord looks at the history—that, by getting up in the middle of July, as the Motion says, we would be missing two weeks of sitting. If 16th July were a Thursday, if the House sat the following week, in many years—I say this as one who used to organise such things in another place—the House would not sit again on 27th July. So in some years, the House would rise only a week earlier in such circumstances.
	That brings me to a point that the noble and learned Lord made early in his speech. One recommendation that he cited was that after the two week sitting in September, the House would rise for three weeks for the party conferences. I have no love of party conferences—I stopped attending them many years ago—but for those of your Lordships who want to attend, I should have thought that it would be far better as a general principle that your Lordships' House did not meet during the party conference period. I know that it has often happened, especially during the Conservative Party conference, which is held last. However, bearing in mind that sometimes we shall miss only one week in July, I hoped that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House would say what he nearly said but not quite: that he would propose that the House would rise for all three party conference weeks.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I am pleased that I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, because I, too, rise to speak in support of the recommendation made by my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House. I, too, was a member of the Leader's Group and I stand by the decision to which I subscribed when we wrote our report, which was to recommend September sittings as part of a package. I must confess that I was surprised that the issue was returning from the Procedure Committee to the House. I was under the impression that the House passed a package including an agreement to effect that change. Perhaps my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will put me right if I misunderstood the position.
	The important point that the House should understand is that we reached our view on returning to work in September in advance of the House of Commons taking any such decision. That decision was reached by the Leader's Group in its own judgment based on what we were trying to achieve with our report. That was not entirely about the convenience of the House, but principally about raising the level of scrutiny and calling the Government to account. Within the Leader's Group, it was generally—almost unanimously—agreed that there was sufficient cause for the House to be recalled during September because there was sufficient work for it to undertake then. In particular, we discussed a whole range of different functions that were delayed that could readily and properly be undertaken in September. I mention to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that I find it amazing—

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He mentioned coming back in September because there was sufficient work to be undertaken then. My understanding of the proposals is that not a single extra day is being asked of Members of this House, so the point about workload has no bearing whatsoever on the proposals.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, as has just been mentioned, it is likely that we will go into recess later than the House of Commons. Later in the year, there may be some changes in the way in which the programme is organised.
	Returning to my point about our responsibilities to the public and in regard to scrutiny, I find it amazing that more than 50 per cent of our legislation emanates from Europe. Many people increasingly express concern about the volume of such legislation being passed, yet we ran from the end of July through to October without any close scrutiny of European legislation. We shall shortly receive a report from the European Union Committee examining how we currently undertake scrutiny.
	So there is a compelling case for work to be undertaken, especially now that the Commons will resume in September. I ask the House to consider what will be the public perception if they see that the Houses of Parliament are not meeting broadly together as they have in the past—whether we will enhance the reputation of the House for its scrutiny and its calling of the Government to account by taking a break that runs from the second week in July through to October. On balance, I do not believe that that would go down especially well.
	Many noble Lords may express views later today about the firemen's dispute and the need for modernisation, flexibility and change. When considering the future of this House, it is also appropriate for us to be prepared to be flexible, to recognise how people perceive us and to consider the work that needs to be done. The change recommended by my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House would ensure that the House would raise its status, rather than be the subject of possible criticism for failing to change.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I ask your Lordships to consider—putting it as neutrally as I can—that the Leader's Group was composed of different strands of opinion. As the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said earlier, we started off with little in common, we realised that we had to give and take and we came to a unanimous conclusion. There was then a full debate in your Lordships' House in which a significant majority decided that we should try to move forward. I think that that is the way. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, he is quite right to say that we suggested a trial period, but the Motion in my name specifically limits itself to 2003.
	I turn to your Lordships' contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, both said that they were absent for my speech. I sympathise with them, because listening to reasoned and reasonable propositions often tends to cloud the judgment and erode prejudice. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that he was going to put forward a few odd views. They were not few, but they were certainly odd. I could not follow the Ferrers faucet point about the eight inch pipe, but I think that he was suggesting two four inch pipes that would not join each other. We would then get all the water running out and nothing useful done.
	The noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Trefgarne, described themselves as the dinosaur tendency. One does not find many live dinosaurs about the world these days; they are normally buried in seaside resorts where people hold party political conferences. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that she was passionately enthusiastic about the Liberal Democrat party conference. I sympathise with her, because the Liberal Democrats do not really have anything else about which to be enthusiastic. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, did not want to go to the Conservative Party conference. I sympathise with him, because Conservatives have everything else about which to be enthusiastic, but not their party conference.
	No one has dealt with the "Forth" point. Mr Forth is a parliamentarian. He is an irritant—and rightly. Even in the Chamber in which the current Opposition is in a significant minority, he ploughs his furrow. What did he say, speaking in another place from the Conservative Front Bench? He said:
	"We . . . enthusiastically endorse sittings in September because it will give the House more opportunity to hold the Government to account instead of giving the Government the free ride that they have traditionally had for two and a half months during the summer".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/02; col. 712.]
	That point is extremely important. We do not simply scrutinise and check the Government on legislation.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, first of all, Mr Forth was talking about the other place, not this place. Secondly, if we retain our present pattern of sitting, while the other place changes its, there will be more weeks of the year in which one or other Chamber is here to hold the Government to account than if we sat at the same times as it.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord and I have one thing in common: we both hope to be parliamentarians. I firmly believe that, when issues of great public importance and consequence arise, as with Iraq, the quality of scrutiny and informed debate in this House, some would say, is significantly better than in the other place. There is no doubt in my mind about that.
	I return to the noble Lord's point. We are both parliamentarians, although we do not agree on everything. It was important that, in the debate on Iraq, for instance, we had half a dozen former Foreign Secretaries contribute to the debate, half a dozen former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and half a dozen bishops, although it is true that the bishops mainly divided among themselves. It is important that that public debate should be had.
	This is an opportunity to ensure that we are not put on the second row on the back shelf, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, seems to accept. The absurdly logical conclusion of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is that it would be a good idea to have neither House sitting at the same time as the other throughout the year.
	This is an aspect of limited progress. We must not put in the balance our personal convenience. It is demeaning to consider holiday convenience, the absolute objection to going on holiday when other people's children might be there or the lost opportunity—lost forever—of a discount on holiday rates. We are here with infinite privilege as Members of Parliament. We have an extraordinary advantage; we ought to be able to discharge our duties in a way that the public thinks is suitable. All that the Motion will do is deliver one small segment of what we have already agreed unanimously in the Leader's Group and by a significant majority in the House.
	Mr Forth is right, and nobody has dealt with the point. Speaking about sitting in September, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said:
	"it will be very difficult for us not to go down that route".—[Official Report, 21/5/02; col. 653.]
	The noble Lord did not say that after the House of Commons had come to its conclusion. I caution your Lordships not to have too much amour propre—neither a Welsh nor an English expression, I am told. We need not object to something simply because the House of Commons proposes it. We come to our own conclusion, as we did long ago, before the Commons had any of its package of change and renewal in place. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that in May, and so did the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, whom I cited.
	I have not suggested—and am not suggesting—that we should blindly follow the Commons. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and I confirm my understanding of the question about the conference season. I suggest that it is good, appropriate, seemly and necessary for us to be broadly coincident with the House of Commons. After all, it is elected. It is not our superior in every way, but it has the superiority of election and dismissal, which we lack.
	This is a short step forward. Have we not hearts big enough to try it? Must we constantly revert to the eighteenth century or, preferably, the seventeenth? I give way to the noble Earl.

Earl Russell: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord belittle the argument for the present arrangement by portraying it as one of simple personal convenience? Does he see any merit in the view, frequently expressed by Lady Seear, that most of us do a good deal outside this place and the less we do outside, the less use we are here?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course I agree with that, as a general proposition. However, if the necessary, inevitable, logical corollary of that were that we ought to sit for two and a half weeks in 52, I would beg leave to dissent. The point is that we have two and a half months off in the summer. It is a complete blank space. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is right: on three years out of the past five, we have been recalled.
	I shall deal with the question of the works in two ways—one is pragmatic and the other goes to the heart of the matter. The pragmatic point is that my office has discussed the question with Black Rod. Those things can be accommodated. I come to the question of principle: if noble Lords really believe that doing our work as parliamentarians should be subordinated to the task of contractors, I differ profoundly. If we come to that conclusion, why are we sitting here?

On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 160; Not-Contents, 76.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Fire Dispute

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to a Private Notice Question in another place earlier today on the firefighters' dispute. The Statement is as follows:
	"The Government deeply regret the continuing firefighters' dispute and believe it cannot be justified. The firefighters are presently paid under a pay formula agreed at the conclusion of the last firefighters' strike 25 years ago. Under that formula, their pay has kept pace with pay rises in the economy as a whole.
	"Following the election of the new general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union earlier this year, the union declared that it wanted to change the formula and tabled a 40 per cent pay claim.
	"The employers agreed to discuss a new formula, and agreed in the meantime to pay 4 per cent, an above inflation pay increase roughly in line with the existing formula and pay awards to comparable groups of workers.
	"The union refused this offer. In an effort to help in September, the Government appointed Sir George Bain, the highly respected chairman of the Low Pay Commission, to inquire into firefighters' pay and a possible new formula. We did so after consultation with the TUC, and also appointed Tony Young, the former president of the TUC, to assist him.
	"Meanwhile, in August, we began preparations with the military for strike cover.
	"The employers co-operated with Bain. The unions again refused even to allow their members to talk to him.
	"When the time for the strike approached, as well as continuing preparation with the forces, we tried to facilitate negotiation. We brought forward Bain. He recommended that above-inflation pay increases could be paid, but only if accompanied by modernisation. Among his findings were: that full-time firefighters should lift the ban on working alongside part-time ones; that overtime, where needed, be worked; that management could change, where necessary, the rigid shift system of two days on, two nights on, then four days off to provide a better service; that firefighters could be allowed to do basic training as paramedics and carry resuscitation equipment like defibrillators; that the fire service could share control rooms with other emergency services to provide efficiency of response; that action be taken to improve the management of sickness in the service to reduce the high numbers that retire early through sickness and ill health.
	"The employers welcomed the report. The Fire Brigades Union rejected it out of hand. Those changes to working practices are plainly reasonable. They would produce substantial savings that could fund a better pay award.
	"The potential deal that may have been reached last Friday morning between the union and the local government employers was unacceptable for the very simple reason that it was not funded through modernisation. In addition, the agreement to modernise was only to talk about it, not a firm commitment to do it; and the costings of the deal were not calculated or given, though plainly significant. In effect, the Government were being asked for a blank cheque.
	"The Government's position is that, over and above the 4 per cent claim already offered to the firefighters, there can be no further money without it being paid for by modernisation.
	"If the existing pay formula of the firefighters— which for 25 years their union insisted on—is to be changed, it has to be changed by agreement. The Bain report offers increased pay above 4 per cent paid for by changes in working practices. It is a fair and reasonable report.
	"The Government cannot be asked to find additional money outside agreed Government spending limits. To do so would risk fundamental and lasting damage to the economy. If the Government were to yield to this claim for pay increases way above inflation and not paid for by productivity, the consequences across the public sector would be huge. Nurses, soldiers—who are manning the fire appliances now on pay far below the firefighters—teachers and police officers would also be seeking similar claims; and all that we have done to produce the lowest inflation, mortgage rates and unemployment in Britain for decades would be put at risk. It is not a course we can take.
	"Meanwhile, the military does a superb job in providing replacement fire cover. I want to pay full tribute to our Armed Forces—Army, Navy and Air Force. They have done brilliantly, as ever, and we can be proud of them—and I thank the public, who have responded in an intelligent and mature way to the strains put on the service. Up to this point, after six days of strike action, they have coped admirably, saving numerous lives in the process. But obviously the risk to the public is there, which is why even now I urge the union to call off the dispute, which cannot succeed, and to return to the negotiating table to discuss how modernisation can fund pay improvements over and above the 4 per cent.
	"The Deputy Prime Minister set out the Government's position last Thursday. He had offered to make a further Statement to the House today, precisely to keep the House informed. That is now superseded by this Answer to the right honourable gentleman's Question, and with the permission of the Speaker my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be making a Statement to the House tomorrow".
	My Lords, That concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. However, is it not extraordinary that it took a Private Notice Question from my right honourable friend Mr Iain Duncan Smith in another place to force the Prime Minister to come to Parliament to make a Statement on this grave situation? This morning, the Prime Minister summoned a press conference to set out his views on the dispute. He was in any case coming to Parliament this afternoon. Should not his first thought have been to inform Parliament before grandstanding to the media? I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will take a very firm message back to the Prime Minister from this House that it is now far beyond high time that Ministers should make major statements to Parliament first and leave the spin until later.
	Turning to the dispute itself, I should like to make it clear that we on this side agree that the pay claim put forward by the FBU is wholly unreasonable. We condemn strike action that puts the public at risk, and we totally condemn threats by other unions, masquerading under health and safety, to indulge in secondary action. The public already have enough to contend with without growing disruption to Tube and train journeys and the wrecking of holiday travel this Christmas.
	Can the noble and learned Lord explain the legal position to this House? Will the Government seek an injunction under Section 240 of the 1992 trade union legislation to ban this strike? Can he assure the House that any attempt to launch secondary action will be immediately confronted in the courts?
	Will the noble and learned Lord confirm the Government's position on the crossing of picket lines to secure use of the most up-to-date equipment? Was the Prime Minister right when he said that crossing picket lines would simply inflame the dispute? Or was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, right when he said that public safety has to come before picket lines? Has not the Government's handling of the matter been an utter, complete and total shambles? Just who is in charge here? Is it the Deputy Prime Minister, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer—or is it now the Prime Minister?
	The dispute is no surprise. Just how is it that the Government seem so unprepared? When it started, they did not know what their policy was on reserve appliances, they did not know what their policy was on training troops to use fire equipment, and they did not seem to know whether they were a party to the dispute at all. All through the summer and autumn, the Government have been inactive and complacent over a growing threat to the safety of the public, and we now have a bitter and highly dangerous situation on our hands. This is undoubtedly partly because of the disastrous stream of mixed messages coming out of the Government.
	Is the deal on offer from the employers "half-baked", as the Deputy Prime Minister said last Friday, or is it "still worth talking about", as he said yesterday? Is the offer simply unaffordable, as the Chancellor said, or are the Government,
	"quite prepared to make an exceptional case",
	as the Deputy Prime Minister said? The fire-fighters do not know where Ministers stand; the employers do not know where the Government stand; and at times it seems that half the Government do not know where the other half of the Government stand.
	What exactly is meant by this word "modernisation"? Is this what we used to call "productivity"? In the view of the Government, will it mean an overall reduction in the number of fire-fighters employed; and, if so, how large? The Prime Minister's intervention this morning made good television, but it had not one single new proposal to solve the crisis, and many will feel that it has simply interjected new bitterness into the dispute.
	What do Ministers think would be a reasonable settlement for the FBU? If Ministers were clear enough on that to pull the rug on the offer made last Friday, they must have some idea of the answer. If they propose to intervene as they did, should not a more competent senior Minister be on hand to give an answer at any time of day or night?
	In conclusion, all Members of this House will want to express their thanks and admiration to the young soldiers in service on our streets and roads today. Many of them would welcome the pay and terms of service that some firemen currently receive. But our troops never neglect their duty. Some of those very young soldiers may be called on to put themselves in the way of a very different kind of danger in the event of war in Iraq. Will the noble and learned Lord therefore give an assurance that their battle-effectiveness and training will not be put at risk by the demands placed on them by the Government in an industrial relations fiasco of the Government's own making?
	This whole episode has been shambolic. I hope that the Government will learn lessons from this shameful period, which has not only put the Government in the very worst possible light but has brought back shades of trade union activism that we thought had been relegated to history.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for replying to the Private Notice Question in another place. We regard the situation as seriously as he does.
	First, I should like to express our deep appreciation of the work of the soldiers and nurses who have manned the green goddesses and echo what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said on that matter. They have put themselves at risk; in many cases they do not have full training for what they do; and they risk their own lives in our protection and defence. The public owes them a great debt of gratitude.
	I also add a word of sympathy for the firemen. It is to their credit that on several occasions a number of them have broken their own picket lines because of lives being at risk. We should place on record that that is a more responsible attitude than some strikers have shown in other disputes and is perhaps one reason that they have managed to retain a degree of public support.
	I should make it absolutely clear that we on these Benches believe that the Government were right to reject the extremely vague blank cheque that the employers proposed to achieve a settlement. There was no indication of how that settlement could be financed beyond the 4 per cent which from the beginning had been made plain was available under previous government arrangements to fund that sum of money, not only for the firemen but for other aspects of public services; no clear costing of how the rest of the claim was to be met; no clear indication of what the savings from modernisation would be; and, most importantly, no clear commitment to a programme of modernisation. We on these Benches therefore believe that the Government were right to reject that particular proposal made on Friday evening. We also have some sympathy with the Deputy Prime Minister's statement to the effect that there were no figures on which he could rely to indicate whether or not the Government could indeed support such a settlement.
	However, I must add a note of criticism of the Government. I believe that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is right to say that a good deal of vagueness and confusion has surrounded this matter. It has not been exactly clear from the beginning that the Government would not fund more than 4 per cent except on the basis of costed modernisation proposals. That was dangerous because the employers seemed to continue to negotiate without any clear awareness of that fact—although they should have known it from the outset—all the way through to the moment of crisis occasioned by the second strike. They went through the first strike without that issue being made clear to the public or, evidently, to the employers or the strikers. The Government should examine very closely the way in which they conducted that part of the negotiations. If it was clear that they would not finance more than 4 per cent in any situation, it is not altogether clear why they joined the negotiations at all.
	My second point concerns modernisation. Our understanding is that the National Joint Council costed the modernisation proposals and indicated that they would yield a saving of about £71 million. It is not clear to us whether that costing of modernisation also allowed for what may be described as a costing of improvements in quality. We all know that one of the great difficulties with the relationship of the fire fighters to their employers has been the extraordinarily anachronistic structure of rules, shift proposals, guarantees and commitments that have been made over many years. For example, we all know that there are fixed shift patterns that do not alter according to the demands of the day, the time of the day or the seasons of the year. We know that there are fixed arrangements under which overtime is limited, even though there may be moments when no overtime is needed and other moments when it is. It is a hopelessly anachronistic, inflexible and rigid structure, and it may be that large savings could be made from its modernisation.
	There is no clear distinction between modernisation involving changes in those existing rigid rules and modernisation in the sense of improving the quality of the service by, for example, firemen being trained—extraordinarily, they are not—in the use of defibrillators, in first aid and in becoming a multi-purpose force, rather than one with a very limited set of requirements and obligations linked to out-of-date technology. Therefore my first question about modernisation is: what does the £71 million cover? Does it cover any estimated improvements in quality, which, as far as we on these Benches can tell, has not so far been costed?
	If the employers and the FBU were able to reach an agreement about the costing of part of their claim from savings on modernisation and if there was a clear commitment to staged modernisation to finance an increase of more than 4 per cent, would the Government in those circumstances be willing to finance the necessary additional transitional funding involved in a payment of salary necessarily somewhat preceding the actual specific savings from modernisation? They are two different matters. Savings from modernisation cannot be immediate.
	In conclusion, I should like to raise the much wider issue of public sector workers. We on these Benches have indicated our sympathy for the Government's approach to the fire strike and the ways in which we hope they can bring about the satisfactory settlement desired by both sides. However, with regard to the much wider repercussion for public sector workers, we take seriously the Government's real concerns about the possibility of undermining their very good record on inflation and public finances. However, have the Government given due consideration to the profound sense of injustice that reigns among public sector workers who see huge increases being offered to senior managers and directors, some with absolutely no record of success whatever, which has created deep bitterness among badly paid public sector workers?
	In addition, will the Government consider how over a medium-term period they will attract teachers and nurses to the public sector at a time when property prices, especially in the south-east, are going through the roof and it is literally impossible for ordinary teachers or nurses to fund even minimal decent accommodation for themselves and their families? Will the Government give more sympathetic consideration to those problems than they have done so far?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and to the noble Baroness for their contributions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether the Government had learnt any lessons. The answer is an unambiguous "yes". They are not lessons that we needed to learn from the present dispute, but lessons that we needed to learn from recent political domestic history. The Prime Minister and the Government are also adamant that we in this country do not want to return to interest rates of 15 per cent. That was the stewardship of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. We do not want to go back to a situation in which hundreds of thousands of people may lose their homes because they are unable to continue to pay their mortgages; nor do we want to return to a situation of high unemployment. Under the Chancellor's stewardship, we presently have inflation of 2 per cent—an historic low. Unemployment has declined since 1997. Mortgage rates are very low as a component of most families' domestic expenditure.
	We have learnt the lesson and no one in this House should be under any illusion: we cannot, we shall not, we must not give in to claims of 40 per cent when inflation is 2 per cent and mortgage rates are what we know them to be. So we have learnt the lesson but we did not need this present dispute to bring it to the centre of our mind. It has been at the heart and forefront of every pronouncement that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made since 1997.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the pay claim is wholly unreasonable: 40 per cent when 2 per cent is the inflation rate and the general going rate has been of the order of 4 per cent. As regards the penultimate point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, many public service settlements have been at a higher rate than those in private industry. I exclude the grotesque, aberrant awards that are given to chief executive officers; namely, on the basis that they have been able to demonstrate continued failure over a period of years.
	What is the legal position? It is that there is the possibility of legal action being taken under the 1992 legislation if certain legal parameters are met and that is a matter for judgment. It is part of the legislation, as the noble Lord identified. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asked a particular question about it when he was in his place a few days ago.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about two apparent divergences. They are not two divergences at all. The citations he gave—I am sure that they were in no way selective—were, first, that the Prime Minister said that to cross picket lines inflames tempers (of course); and, secondly, that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said that public safety must be above picket lines (of course). However, the point of being in government is to make judgments of that kind. They are never easy. They ought to be informed—they ought to be truly informed—and sometimes they are difficult.
	The Government are not a party to the negotiations in the historic sense. The criticism of the present Government has always been that they are too centralistic; that they will not let go the levers of power; and that they constantly interfere with everything. So on this occasion the employers negotiated with the Fire Brigades' Union, but they were under no misapprehension—I beg your Lordships' pardon, they could not reasonably have been under any reasonable misapprehension—that the budgetary settlement was exactly that. It was a budget and it was settled.
	Some people suggest that the Deputy Prime Minister in the early hours of the morning should have said yes or no—"Put your tick in the box, Mr Prescott"—on proposals which were not costed, were not detailed and did not condescend to any sensible defined proposals for rationalisation of working practices. I use that word in place of "modernisation". But he would have been grotesquely irresponsible to have said yes. The criticism of him for not saying yes and for saying that he needed further detailed material, access to legitimate costings and proper advice is wholly unreasonable and based on no understanding of the true economic situation in this country. The Government have had a consistent position throughout. There is no more money except within existing funding levels unless it is capable of being demonstrated to be savings by way of modernisation—or, as I say, rationalisation.
	Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked what we speak of when we speak about modernisation. I repeat the examples. Full-time fire fighters should lift the ban on working alongside part-time ones. If any of your Lordships can demonstrate to me even the beginnings of an argument against that proposition, I shall be pleased and grateful to hear it—although I think I shall be waiting rather a long time. Overtime, where needed, should be worked. This House is well accustomed to unpaid overtime and we do it. Why? Because we know that it is a necessary consequence of the work that we do. Management can change where necessary the rigid shift system of two days on, two nights on and then four days off. We have just voted by a two to one majority to change our rigid shift system, even in September.
	Finally, let us examine this, which is deeply important. Fire fighters should be allowed to do basic training as paramedics and carry resuscitation equipment such as defibrillators. I point to what our own colleagues in this House did when it was necessary to provide defibrillators. Did they say that it was not their work? Did they refuse to assist? There is a moral there.
	The past history of 25 years stuck in aspic with practices that cannot be justified on any basis is intolerable. Being intolerable, it is not to be tolerated and therefore it will not be. The one easy way out is the gross irresponsibility of not recognising that this claim does not stand alone—although it is not sustainable on its own. Everyone in this Chamber knows, and I believe that the majority of the public know, that this will not be the last such claim; that it is not proportionate; that it is not reasonable; and that it is not sustainable.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord two questions. First, if everything above 4 per cent is to be paid for out of productivity gains so that the overall cost of the Fire Service does not increase, what scale of redundancies will be required? Improvements in quality will not reduce the overall cost of the 16 per cent package.
	Secondly, does the noble and learned Lord agree with those lawyers who believe that a combination of measures under the social chapter and of human rights legislation have in effect granted a right to strike? If that is so, is it any longer possible either to seek an injunction against strikers for doing what is their legal right or to seek an action in tort against a trade union for the same action?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is tempting me to revert to my former occupation. I do not believe that the Human Rights Act restricts necessary action. A human right is the right to withdraw one's labour, but it is not an absolute right, as the noble Lord knows and did a great deal to bring about. All of the human rights legislation deals with proportionality and the balancing of different interests. To put it at its simplest, my right to free speech is constrained by the noble Lord's right not to be defamed by me. I do not believe that the social chapter and the human rights legislation will inhibit the Government from acting as they think appropriate.
	I cannot give an answer to the redundancy point, which is a very important one. But I will put this question, if I may, because the noble Lord asked questions which were utterly devoid of any party-political advantage. What happened when the dispute arose? I will put it neutrally. The Government set up an independent inquiry. Could it be said that Sir George Bain was likely to be a placeman or a preacher? Emphatically not. He is respected by everyone in this particular field: he chaired the Low Pay Commission after all.
	The Bain committee, which included a former president of the Trades Union Congress, said, "We must modernise. Here is a first report. We hope that you will be able to discuss it". The way forward is of discussion, of attempting to cost and attempting to forecast the future. It is difficult with firemen, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, knows because they can retire at different times; one can retire after a certain period on a half pension and, with more years' service, on a two-thirds pension. All of those things will be actuarially difficult to propose unless we have negotiations.
	The FBU would not co-operate at all with Bain, part one or part two. To my understanding, it has put forward no proposal for modernisation. I believe that if the Bain inquiry said, "Let us sit down and discuss. Here is our initial draft, please rejoin us in December", then some of the answers to those questions—I agree with the implicit point of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that they are difficult questions—can be arrived at. But we shall never arrive at them if someone is holding a gun, with loaded chamber, at our head.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I echo the strong support given to the Government by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition for resisting the 40 per cent claim, or anything like it. As the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said, it would be catastrophic for the public sector as a whole and for the economic management of the country.
	I regret the rather unworthy little jibes which the noble and learned Lord directed towards the previous government's economic policy. Quite frankly, the present economic prosperity that Britain enjoys, which is well ahead of most countries in Europe, is based on the Conservative inheritance of very sound economic policy. So let us get that out of the way.
	I strongly support the Chancellor in his apparent decision that to meet the shortfall that will occur in his revenues he will not increase taxes, he will not cut spending but he will increase borrowing. That is clearly right.
	Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the firemen are led by a highly politically motivated leader, who is one of a group of such who have recently emerged? I have had the opportunity to talk to some of them. Does the noble and learned Lord realise that they are every bit as antagonistic and opposed to the new Labour Government as they would be if there were a Conservative Government? That is another reason why it is so important to try to separate them from the membership and to stand up against them.
	I turn finally to a short technical point, which I raise after talking to people in Suffolk. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that some of the retained firemen are members of the Fire Brigades Union because in these days of liability claims the insurance facilities offered to members of other unions are not adequate to protect their apprehension of being sued if something goes wrong when they are tackling a fire? Will the noble and learned Lord at least feed that into the process of considering the wider aspects of the dispute?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the noble Lord's latter point straightaway. I do not know the intricacies of the insurance position in his part of the world but, as he knows, my noble friend Lord Rooker will be repeating the Statement—if that is what the House wishes—to be made by the Deputy Prime Minister tomorrow and I hope that we may at least have made some inquiries about that. I undertake to do that. The noble Lord can see my noble friend Lord Rooker sitting next to me.
	I was not making unworthy little jibes. I was making a serious point, which is this: if we do not stand firm we shall drift backwards into the old lethargy which was a characteristic of this country. It is not a party political point because a good deal of the inheritance left by the government in which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, served has been to the public benefit in this country. I was not making the point that everything was bad. I was making the serious and sober point that once we start to lose our resolution we will be in danger of returning to the bad old times—hyper inflation, people losing their houses, people losing their jobs and a general feeling of social insecurity and uncertainty which has endless social ramifications, as I know the noble Lord would be the first to agree.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord was absolutely right in what he said in his last sentence. Perhaps I may ask him why there was no plan B. The Government have had months to know what was in store for them.
	Is it not possible to look at—not necessarily to accept—the practice in both Denmark and the United States of a decentralised fire service, where each individual county or town runs its own fire service without the centralised block wage bargaining which clogs everything up? For example, Surrey or Yorkshire could arrive at their own arrangements, which could be different for each county because their circumstances are different. No one has thought of that.
	I get the impression—I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to dispel it—that the Government have been caught on the hop. There is no plan B and no one has thought of an alternative. That is the criticism I would raise against Her Majesty's present advisers.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Earl may raise that criticism but it would be mistaken. One cannot sensibly approach an industrial dispute by saying to the employees, "We may take away your jobs altogether and go a completely different way". The true plan B was the setting up of the Bain inquiry. It was a perfectly sensible thing to do. No one said its terms of reference were wrong; the employers were willing to contribute; its constitution in terms of the people on it was immaculately independent—and the union, I repeat, refused to have anything to do with it. It put forward no ideas for modernisation—not even on one side of a postcard—and forbade its own members to give evidence.
	In those circumstances a government have to take a firm stand, and that is what we have done. It is being misrepresented—we shall have to bear that. It may well be unpopular in the short-term—we must bear that.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I declare an interest. I am a county councillor and I have been involved in negotiating with both the Fire Brigades Union and the police.
	The negotiating machinery is very bad indeed. It involves a huge number of people—about 40 on the management side and about 40 on the police side. I went to a meeting at the police national negotiating body two weeks ago, where all those people were in a room and only one person on each side was allowed to speak. They then went away into other rooms and talked among themselves, and then they came back again. I plead with the Government to give some thought to streamlining this negotiating machinery. There is no doubt that huge misunderstandings arise when so many people—some representing counties, some representing employers' associations and some representing national bodies—are all merged together. As soon as we get a simplified negotiating machinery, I am sure that in reasonable circumstances we can look forward to better and clearer outcomes.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, makes a very good point. But he said "in reasonable circumstances". I recognise in my mind the citation from the American President, I think, who said, "Come, let us reason together". But, mixing the citations rather inappropriately, it takes at least two to tango. There is no reason why we should not have different views of how we carry out negotiations. Lots of other professional bodies have to change; lots of other trade unions have to change. It is not reasonable simply to say, "Here is a 40 per cent claim; we will do nothing in the context of the Bain inquiry; we will offer no evidence; we will destroy none of your misapprehensions".
	For the long term, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, of course there will be lessons to be learnt. But one of the lessons we are adamant about is that we will not give in to blackmail.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that although 40 per cent was the original claim there seems to have been a shift in the FBU position and that 16 per cent has been mentioned as a possible solution, phased in over a period, with £25,000 as the aimed for pay for fire-fighters? There seems to have been a shift in the union's position judging by the press statements which came out over the week-end.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I could be wrong, because I have not taken part in the negotiations and I am only doing the best I can with the material I have. It is not to my knowledge that the FBU has disclaimed, discarded or withdrawn its 40 per cent claim. In a context of 2 per cent inflation, without being properly funded it would not be responsible for a government to accept 16 per cent.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord's stance that the Government must now take a firm stand. I also support what was said by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, about the problems of restrictive practices in the unions, which is not new. It very much exists in this union today and it must be dealt with. That being so, I ask for assurance, first, that our Armed Forces shall not be asked to cross the picket lines without an emergency Order in Council on the affirmation of both Houses; and, secondly, that in these regrettable circumstances the Government will use their best endeavours to repair their nets with the trades union movement as a whole. Only with its support will the general situation improve. Forget the FBU for a moment; a general situation of far greater importance is looming. Could the Government take the initiative and restore negotiations with the trade union movement?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I will consider his first point, which is one of legal technicality as well as having a wider purpose. On his second point about the Government's best endeavours to have amicable relations with the trade union movement, that is exactly what we wanted. The Prime Minister demonstrated that; the former president of the Trades Union Council was asked to sit on the Bain inquiry. No one could be more generous than that. He and I have the previous convictions of being members of probably the best organised closed shop that the world has ever known, of which we are still members. I was chairman of it, so I know. It is called the Bar Council—perhaps I should not utter those two words.
	Immediately before the last election, and immediately after the 1997 election, the Prime Minister said that we would treat our fellow citizens in the unions fairly but without favouritism. That is a good star to be guided by. I hope I do not trespass on your Lordships' tolerance, but one needs to remember that every wage increase that cannot be justified is a burden on all other citizens in this country. I pay tribute to the public services; my parents were both teachers and my first full-time job was as a teacher. Nobody needs me to pay tribute to the quality of public servants. We must all change, particularly given that we benefit from the present good economic circumstances in this country, or at least we must all have open minds to arguments for change. I say with deep regret that that is what has been lacking. For instance, Mr Prescott approaches the situation with a sad heart because he went into politics to secure the rights, liberties and appropriate privileges of those who work for a living. But that history cannot blind him or anyone else in the Government to our present serious circumstances.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, to follow the noble Lord's analogy of it taking two to tango, it seems that three organisations are tangoing in this situation: the union, the Government and the employers. It is perhaps no wonder that there is a little bit of tripping over each other's feet. Can the Lord Privy Seal clarify the role that the Government are playing? Were I a local authority negotiator in this situation, I would find it very hard to know what my negotiating hand might be if the Government were to say, "no we won't give you the funds, but we are not taking a part in the negotiation directly". I am probably not alone in wanting to understand this. It goes beyond the fire fighters' strike but very directly to the points that the Lord Privy Seal made about the health of the economy.
	My noble friend Lady Williams talked about the problems of public sector workers with housing and so on, particularly in London and the South East. We all need to ensure that their reasonable claims are satisfied with a view to the health of the whole economy, particularly that of London and the City, without which our economy would crumble just as fast as it would if wage claims spiralled out of control.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there are two points. Part of the Deputy Prime Minister's remit is to address those very problems. He is engaged in securing funds and applying them to the exact problems that the noble Baroness identified, and which were referred to earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
	The FBU's claim is 40 per cent, and slightly more than 50 per cent for control room staff. To paraphrase the point of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, the local authority negotiators are there to negotiate within their budgets. Very substantial settlements have been given by the Chancellor. But he said time and time again that those are to be used for reform and renewal—not simply to be dissipated and diverted into excessive pay demands. In a negotiation, one needs to be a competent negotiator. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, thinks that the mechanism is not competent. I am not sure whether he applied "incompetent" to the individuals; therefore I shall neither disagree nor agree with him. But the proposed draft offer winging its way to Mr Prescott in the early hours of the morning was uncosted, unfunded and unmonitored.

NATO Summit, Prague

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the NATO summit. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the NATO summit in Prague on 20th-22nd November. With my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary, I represented the United Kingdom at the North Atlantic Council, the special meeting of the North Atlantic Council with the seven new countries invited to become new members, and the Euro Atlantic Partnership Council. At the outset, may I pay tribute to President Havel and our Czech hosts, and to the skilful chairmanship of the NATO Secretary-General, George Robertson, who has been widely and rightly praised for his leadership in this role.
	"The summit reflected the extraordinary changes in the global security environment in which all nations now operate.
	"NATO itself has changed. We decided on seven new members. I congratulate Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia on their invitations. They are well deserved. They reflect the progress in reform that all seven countries have made since the end of the Cold War. All are on course to be in the alliance by the next summit in 18 months time and to be contributors to European security. This enlargement will strengthen NATO and make the whole continent of Europe more secure.
	"These invitations will not be the last. The United Kingdom will help those who want to join, and who meet the criteria, to succeed in the future.
	"Secondly, NATO continues to build new relationships outside its formal membership. Most importantly, the relationship with Russia has been transformed this past year. We now work with Russia as an equal partner, co-operating in a wide range of areas. A good example is the Balkans, where NATO and Russia are together making an immense contribution towards our goal of a peaceful and stable Balkans playing a full part in the European family. One of NATO's greatest benefits has been the forum it has provided for its European and transatlantic members to deal with security challenges together. My great hope is that we are now beginning to include the new Russia as a real partner in meeting the new threats we face. There was a useful meeting in Prague of the NATO-Russia Council at Foreign Minister level.
	"NATO is also pursuing its practical co-operation with the Ukraine, and strengthening its wider partnerships with the Mediterranean, central Asia and the Caucasus. NATO is building a close and effective relationship with the EU on crisis management, for example in the Balkans. At Prague, we decided to maintain a NATO presence in Macedonia for a further limited period. Once the EU-NATO links are in place, I am keen to see an ESDP operation in Macedonia to show that Europe can play its part in bringing security and stability to this part of our continent.
	"Thirdly, NATO needs to develop new capabilities. The Cold War is over. There are new missions and new threats. The key is flexibility of response, adaptability of military forces and modernisation of defence capabilities.
	"The Prague summit agreed on three new instruments to help meet these challenges: a new NATO response force will provide NATO with effective forces available at short notice; all allies have committed to improve their capabilities in specific ways to support and equip forces that are flexible and deployable; and we agreed on a revised, reduced and refocused command structure.
	"Above all, the summit was a profound demonstration of unity in the face of the new threats that confront us. Every nation spoke of the menace of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. We all recognised that there is no place to hide from them. The terrorists do not distinguish between the 'soft' or 'hard' nations on terrorism. Every European country knows that it is under threat, whether known as strong supporters of US policy or not. Every nation talked of the cells of Al'Qaeda or related groups within them, ready to strike at innocent people.
	"This is not a war which we can avoid. There is no appeasing these fanatics. They will not go more lightly on us if we are less outspoken in our condemnation of them. Their enemy is anyone who is not them and they feel as strongly, sometimes more so, against the moderate Muslim as they do against the Christian or Jew or Hindu.
	"The NATO summit affirmed that simple truth. It was a remarkable statement of defiance. And it linked very clearly and rightly terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The threat from weapons of mass destruction in the hands of rogue unstable states is not part of some different danger. It, too, represents savage indifference to human life. It, too, crosses national boundaries without discrimination. It, too, cannot be negotiated with or appeased, only defeated utterly.
	"The strength of the NATO summit statement on Iraq was testimony to that belief. There was complete unanimity round the table that the choice for war or peace lies with Saddam, and that if he breached the will of the UN, the UN would have to act. There was strong support for multilateralism and for the decision of President Bush to go through the UN but equally strong insistence that multilateralism and the UN be seen to work. And some of the most powerful expressions of these sentiments on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction came not from the old but from the new members of the NATO alliance.
	"President Havel was a prisoner of the old communist regime; he was witness to the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact; he has now presided over NATO's largest gathering. The president of Lithuania, who has seen his country raped and destroyed by war and totalitarian oppression, and who lived for 50 years in Chicago as an exile from his homeland, is now back as its president. The president of Latvia, for years a professor in Montreal, spoke in the most moving terms of her country's long dark years, struggle for freedom and pride in becoming part of NATO.
	"Each representative has a story to tell and all have the same theme: they know the value of the fight for freedom, for democracy, for the rule of law and the struggle to break free of totalitarian intolerance and fanaticism. And they know the meaning of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in the hands of brutal and repressive states. They know that extremism has just taken a new form for the 21st century. And they were complete in their determination that these new threats had to be faced, conquered and confined to history just like the scourges of the twentieth century. They had much to tell us about the values we believe in. Sometimes we can be complacent about them. They were not. They know their worth. And the ultimate message from the NATO summit was far more powerful than discussion of capabilities or formal structures. It was that if we care about these values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, we should not flinch from the fight in defending them and I know this country, Britain, will defend them with courage and certainty".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating this important Statement. In view of the fact that the House has not yet started the main business of the day, I shall keep my remarks fairly brief.
	There will be few noble Lords who do not welcome the extension of the NATO family to bring in more of the nations of eastern Europe. The fracturing of Europe into east and west was one of the underlying historical tragedies of the whole of the last millennium. It has been a source of far too much strife and suffering over the centuries, underscored in the post-war era by the brutal enslavement of eastern Europe under left-wing totalitarianism.
	Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the existence of the NATO alliance was a primary reason for the breaking of the tyranny of the socialist bloc? There were many who marched and campaigned against NATO. However, it can now be seen that NATO has been the most successful alliance of modern times. Can he confirm that it remains the core principle of the Government's international security policy to maintain and strengthen that alliance?
	The Prague commitment to transform NATO with new members, new capabilities and new relationships with our partners is a step in the right direction. But have all the key issues been resolved? When will European members of NATO start increasing, instead of cutting, defence spending? The Prague statement is long on commitments and short on targets. How can we be sure that our NATO allies will deliver on the Prague commitments?
	Before the summit there were many gloomy predictions. Many repeated the old line that Russia would be alienated from Europe and the US if the alliance were extended. Instead, President Putin himself said that he had no problems with the outcome of the summit. Is not the reality that Russia has as much to gain from a circle of security and peace on its western borders as we have to gain from improving relations with a Russia that President Bush historically described as a "friend" of the United States? In that context, were the situations in Moldova and Georgia discussed at Prague? If so, were there any conclusions?
	Mention of President Bush calls to mind another set of dire predictions before the summit from so-called progressive commentators. It was said that there was a growing US-European division. It was said that President Bush was a unilateralist who was pushing a divisive agenda. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the outcome of the summit spectacularly disproved that view? Would he agree that President Bush acted as a major unifying force before and during the summit?
	We welcome the commitment to the new NATO response force, which is vital to enable NATO countries to contribute effectively to the war against terrorism. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that NATO commitments rather than EU commitments will always have priority in all NATO member states? There are dangers of incoherence in this context. There is potential confusion for our troops who are asked to wear two or three defence hats at one time.
	Finally, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that the Government stand by their commitment that no EU operation should take place until permanent arrangements between NATO and the EU are securely in place? This was an historic summit. Let us hope that NATO is further strengthened in the long term by it.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in another place. I do not find the Statement quite as acceptable as did the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that it is a rather anodyne Statement, which covers a number of extremely crucial decisions. They are perhaps among the most crucial decisions that the House will be called on to discuss now or in the future. Some of those decisions profoundly require discussion and debate in the House.
	I begin by discussing what I believe are the two great achievements of the NATO meeting; I obviously commend them, as other noble Lords have done. The first is that of expansion, which has clearly been done in a way that minimises the fears of Russia. I agree that President Putin has accepted that and that so far he sees the expansion of NATO not as a threat but in some ways as a stabilising force. That is good news.
	Secondly, it is worth mentioning the agreement reached about Kaliningrad, which has for a long time been a thorn in the whole relationship between Russia and the West. I believe that the proposal made with regard to the movement of people in and out of Kaliningrad through Lithuanian territory is a satisfactory outcome. I had the pleasure two weeks ago of being at a conference in Russia, where Russia-European relations were discussed by a number of senior attenders, including President Putin's main sherpa. They agreed that the Kaliningrad approach, which has now been accepted, was one they would find very calming from their point of view. I have some questions about what I find extremely troubling, not so much about the Statement but as regards what underlies it in terms of the events that occurred at NATO.
	My first question relates to the tension between the rapid reaction force and the European rapid reaction force that was proposed and supported by the Prime Minister, among others, only a short time ago. No mention is made in the Statement of that second European force, although it was quite clear that it was intended to work on areas that would not be addressed by the proposed NATO response force; namely, the Petersburg tasks relating to peacekeeping, nation building, and humanitarian aid, which are of particular importance in areas such as the Balkans, Macedonia, Moldova, and Georgia. In the first three cases, the United States has indicated that it regards them primarily as European, not American, responsibilities. How will we address those tasks if we continue to get absolutely nowhere with the European security and defence force? Indeed, we do not appear to be getting anywhere very fast.
	Secondly, in the interstices of the NATO summit Mr Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, indicated that we now support the idea of a ballistic missile defence system. He said that developing the capacity to defend against the threat of ballistic missile attack is in the interest of the UK, just as much as it is in the interest of the United States. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who speaks on defence in this House, used rather more moderate words when speaking on the subject. He said that there is no essential need at present for Britain to invest in a missile defence system in this country. He added that the Government would agree to this only if the security of the United Kingdom and of NATO would be enhanced.
	We have had many debates on the matter, not only in this House but also elsewhere. There has never been a consensus in this country in favour of support for a national—or, for that matter, a non-national—ballistic missile defence. Repeated Questions about Fylingdales were tabled in this House, the answers to which were invariably that no request had been received from the United States. There was never a serious debate about whether we should accept the proposal to hand over this base to the United States for the purposes of missile defence.
	At least some of us are very unsure about whether the estimated expenditure of £10 billion for this purpose is a sensible use of scarce UK defence money when there are so many requirements for conventional weapons and for improving the equipment of our troops. Parliament should have had an opportunity to debate the matter in detail before the Government, in the shape of the Secretary of State for Defence, simply assumed that we now support it.
	Thirdly, I should like to know what kind of command structure exists as regards the proposed NATO response force of 21,000 people. We are informed that the command structure will be American, to which I have no objection. However, we are also informed that the consensual structure of NATO decision making may not apply to the use of this response force. If it is intended that the NATO defence force be an annex to the American military establishment, let it be said straightforwardly that that is what it is all about.
	Finally, there is no difference of opinion between these Benches and the government Benches about the absolute necessity to address terrorism. However, I must express profound concern about the way in which the second string of the attack on terrorism is being approached. Noble Lords on these Benches have long argued, as I believed was also the case with the Government, that there was more than one response to terrorism. In other words, there is not only a military but also a non-military response: one that recognises the importance of building up democracy; the importance of peacekeeping activities; and the necessity of addressing poverty and the other underlying evils of our world.
	The OSCE was developed with Russian, American, and Canadian membership for such a purpose. I am troubled by the fact that there is no reference in the Statement to these second and vitally importance ways of dealing with terrorism. I believe that much of the position taken by this country, by other European countries, and in the past by the United States, in terms of a multilateral structure of arms control, of addressing weapons of mass destruction, and so on, has simply been disregarded and, essentially, passed by in this Statement. I hope that that is only an omission, not an indication of a new government policy.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his extremely generous comments on this achievement. I take his point that there is other business on the Order Paper that has been somewhat delayed today. Therefore, I shall try to be brief. I agree with the noble Lord that the breaking of the totalitarian power of the former USSR was significantly brought about by NATO, and the robust stance adopted by United States administrations over the period since 1945. In fact, the difficulty at present is understanding how quickly things have changed.
	I agree with the noble Lord that it is a core principle that we maintain our loyalty to NATO as plainly as we possibly can. Similarly, I agree that Russia has much to gain. It is an extraordinary achievement that Russia should have taken part in the recent NATO-Russian council. The noble Lord asked specifically about Moldova and Georgia. The governments of both those countries were present on the second day of the summit. Georgia has expressed a long-term interest, together with the Ukraine, in the possibility of joining.
	The noble Lord asked whether President Bush was a unilateralist or a multilateralist. Although I did not hear his response from him, I heard it from his Secretary of State for Defense. He said that it depends on the circumstances. If it is essential within the United States' interest that they act alone, then they must be prepared to bear the burden of such action. Plainly, in his approach to NATO, and in his recent notable speech to the United Nations Security Council, President Bush has demonstrated himself to be an appropriate multilateralist. I think that the qualifying adjective may be mine.
	The noble Lord asked about the position vis-a-vis the European security and defence policy and NATO. We do not regard them as rivals. If an operation is conducted in a NATO or in an EU framework, it depends on the particular circumstances and which countries would wish to be engaged.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, took a rather more gloomy view; indeed, she used the word "anodyne" and said that many issues were skated over in the Statement. I cannot accept that description. The outcome of the summit is a remarkable achievement. I accept her implicit proposition that these are only first stages. We are talking about countries that will join, but they will not do so immediately. They have differences in quantity as well as in quality regarding what they can bring to the process.
	I noted the noble Baroness's comments on the £10 billion expenditure on missile defence. I shall transmit onwards her suggestion that Parliament, or at least this House of Parliament, should have an opportunity to debate the matter in detail. I am not the master in that respect, but I shall certainly mention that suggestion to the usual channels.
	As to the command structure, I can tell the noble Baroness that all such matters will be under the political authority of the North Atlantic Council. She made the very important point with which I wholly agree; namely, that the need to meet the threat of terrorism is not simply military, and not military of one sort. There are reasons, purposes, and motives that drive people towards terrorism and to the destruction of their own lives and communities as well as the destruction of other lives and communities. Simply to think that military action is the answer is a short-sighted approach, and a profoundly mistaken one. I do not believe that that is the view of the United States Administration. It is certainly not the view of this Government.
	This Government can demonstrate that quite well in practice. One of the remarkable successes has been the tenure of DfID by Clare Short, who is an absolutely doughty champion of precisely the objectives identified by the noble Baroness. But, more importantly, she has also been an effective champion as regards the increase in aid and its proper direction that we have seen take place over the past five years.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, I have the honour of representing this House on the NATO parliamentary assembly; and, indeed, lead the British delegation. We met in session immediately prior to the meeting in Prague. Perhaps I may confirm to the House that the Russian attitude is just as outlined by my right honourable friend in his Statement. There is a definite change in attitude and in demeanour, which bodes well for future negotiations.
	My right honourable friend made the point about NATO's rapid reaction force and the associated command structure. That means that it is a new ball game and a new step-change in our fight against terrorism and other war-fighting capabilities. But can my noble and learned friend assure me that the British Government will use all their powers and that they will give all possible support to the Secretary-General, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in his efforts to persuade some of our allies to increase the amount of money that they spend on defence? Unless they do so, we shall not have the capabilities for that rapid reaction force to be as effective as it should be.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to, and in agreement with, my noble friend. In particular, following the Rome Summit in May, I believe that the Prime Minister said that that summit had marked a transformation in the relationship between Russia and the alliance. Indeed, the NATO-Russia Council has got off to a very good start in the fields of counter-terrorism, peacekeeping, missile defence and defence reform. Therefore, I am most grateful that my noble friend, who has far greater expertise than me in these matters, is able to confirm that.
	He will also have noted in the Statement which I repeated on behalf of the Prime Minister the very sharp tribute which the Prime Minister paid to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. I can assure my noble friend that the Prime Minister has his point well in mind, as does the Secretary-General, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. If we are to bear the burdens, we must bear them with some degree of equity.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clark, about defence spending, were any firm undertakings given by the existing or applicant members to increase their defence spending and their defence capabilities?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I said earlier, I believe that the best answer that I can give to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, is that these are very much preliminary stages. The objectives that he identified will be long-term ones. I can reaffirm this Government's agreement that, if there are to be burdens, they must be fairly shared because the whole purpose of their policy is to bring about benefit to every constituent member of NATO as well as to our neighbours.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, while I always agree with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, on this occasion I share many of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. In particular, I share her concern about the inadequate opportunity in this House to consider many of the critical, far-reaching and important issues that were discussed and, indeed, agreed. Those range from crisis prevention to post-conflict resolution, NATO's role in countering terrorism, the RRF, Fylingdales and, indeed, as a consequence of much of the discussion, the total cost impact on the UK's budget. Those are all major issues. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord said that this was a beginning. But many of us saw the decisions as milestone decisions and worthy of greater and more detailed consideration by your Lordships' House.
	In that context, when the noble and learned Lord pauses to reflect on the summit, perhaps I may ask whether it is the view of the Government that American and European security interests are now one and the same and, if they are not, where they differ.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about time for debate. I must not be partisan, but that may be a consequence of the different way that we work. If we carry out more work in Grand Committee, for example, there may be better opportunities—I know that the noble Baroness is equally as keen on this as the noble Lord—to have genuine debate in the Chamber where there is a vast amount of expertise. I shall probably go to my death wishing that the excellent quality of the debates was reflected in any of the media. That is not the case, despite the fact that extremely good work is done here.
	With regard to identity of interest, I would express that as "community of interest". We shall not agree with the United States on every single aspect of every single component of every single foreign policy. But I agree with the noble Lord that there is much more that binds us together and much deeper community of interest than divides us. I believe that that is reflected by the outcome of this extraordinarily successful summit, where European countries joined fully and wholeheartedly with the United States in the same way as, for example, the United States joined with countries which, until a very short time ago, were under the heel of totalitarianism and would not have dreamt of agreeing with the United States on anything. Indeed, their citizens found it very difficult even to travel outside the borders because there was a wall.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, briefly, can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that the French agreed wholeheartedly with the division of responsibilities between NATO and ESDP as agreed at Prague? Does he think that there is a sporting chance that they will continue to support those agreements in future?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord had not said "sporting chance"—not following last weekend, and I am not simply talking about England. I believe that there is. It is in the interest of all European nations to secure the peace that, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, has been hard won over a period of more than half a century. There are bound to be differences of view. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, would not expect a dull uniformity in Europe in any circumstances.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [HL]

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The Bill concerns the adapted version of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, commonly referred to as the "CFE Treaty", which was signed in Paris on 19th November 1990. The agreement on adaptation of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty—more commonly known as the "Adapted CFE Treaty"—was signed by all states party to the CFE Treaty at Istanbul on 19th November 1999.
	The original CFE Treaty limits the holdings of five categories of heavy weapons—tanks, armoured combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft and attack helicopters—by the 30 member states of NATO and the former Warsaw Pact. The treaty includes an important transparency and verification regime. It is seen as a cornerstone of European security and has resulted in the destruction of more than 50,000 heavy weapons in Europe. However, the treaty was negotiated at the end of the Cold War and it needed to be adapted in order to reflect the break-up of the Warsaw Pact and NATO enlargement.
	The Adapted CFE Treaty replaces the old bloc-to-bloc system with national and territorial ceilings for heavy weapons. The Adapted CFE Treaty also provides for greater transparency than the present CFE Treaty through a substantially enhanced system of information provision. In particular, it increases the amount of military information that each of the 30 states party to the treaty must provide and it enhances the regime of inspections. The Adapted CFE Treaty also includes provisions for new European states to join.
	The Adapted CFE Treaty provides for inspections of larger areas than in the original CFE Treaty. In the United Kingdom, the fact that increasingly parts of military sites are owned and operated by the private sector means that we need to legislate to allow access to these private sites.
	The main provisions of this short technical Bill amend the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Act 1991 to provide for the additional rights of entry to private land which are required to implement the additional inspection requirements of the Protocol on Inspections of the Agreement on Adaptation. It also confers a power to make further amendments to the 1991 Act should they be needed to implement future amendments to the CFE Treaty.
	The Bill thus provides the legislation necessary for the UK to ratify the Adapted CFE Treaty quickly when the time is right. While the UK is keen for the Adapted CFE Treaty to come into force as soon as possible, our position and that of our NATO allies is that ratification can be envisaged only in the context of full compliance by all states parties with agreed treaty limits and consistent with the commitments contained in the CFE Final Act.
	We and other NATO allies continue to urge Russia to resolve the outstanding issues on Georgia and Moldova. The Secretary of State will not bring the Act into force in accordance with Clause 3 until the Government are ready to ratify the agreement on adaptation. I hope that your Lordships will be able to support the Bill.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill. As we have heard, it deals with amendments to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and enhances transparency, which we welcome.
	In the light of the agreement on adaptation, I should be interested to hear the implications for declared sites in the UK. As I understand it, the reason for providing additional rights of entry under Section VII of the protocol on inspections is that private companies are now involved in the ownership and operation of sites that were previously managed wholly by the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister give the House an example of a site to which that might apply? Would it, for example, apply to airfields and RAF bases that are no longer used by the Ministry of Defence but are still used for domestic and freight purposes? I should be grateful for clarification on the procedure under the new part-ownership arrangements.
	Under Clause 2, in future any amendment to the CFE Treaty would no longer appear before your Lordships' House as primary legislation. It would appear as an affirmative instrument. That represents, I fear, yet another example of the Government enacting measures by secondary legislation. We should like simply to register our concerns. The CFE Treaty addresses sensitive issues.
	The protocol on inspections in particular concerns rights of entry to areas that may be partly or jointly owned by private companies. I am anxious that all parties likely to be affected by amendments to the treaty will be aware of every implication thereof.
	The final point I should like to raise concerns the commencement of the Act. It will come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State appoints by statutory instrument. I understand that that will happen only when the Government are ready to ratify the agreement on adaptation. As your Lordships will know, when the agreement was signed in Istanbul in 1999, a CFE Final Act was also signed. As we have heard, Russia is committed to withdrawing her forces from Georgian and Moldovan territories by the end of 2002. Both countries are possible future members of NATO, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House in the Statement on NATO. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain how the situation is progressing with regard to Russian withdrawal in the flank zone.
	Does the delay that has occurred between the agreement being signed and the introduction of this Bill reflect uncertainties regarding the future of Russian forces in the flank zone? Clearly, the agreement on adaptation can be ratified only when states parties have complied with agreed treaty limits.
	As it is not the practice of this House to vote on Second Reading, I should like to give notice to the Minister that I shall return to these serious matters in Committee. We should bear in mind that as we shall be in Grand Committee, we might have to keep this open for later stages of the Bill. I shall be enormously grateful for clarification and look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, when I heard the noble and Learned Lord the Leader of the House refer to this as the main Business of the day, I assumed that the noble Baroness would honour us with a 25 minute explanation, to which we would then reply with at least 15 minute speeches. I now have to tear up the last 10 minutes of my speech in the light of the short speech she made.
	We on these Benches welcome this modest but useful extension of the CFE Treaty. We have always supported the principle of inspection and verification. We accept that national sovereignty has to be limited by the extension of multilateral arms control, and this takes us a further stage forward. Arms control has clearly to accept the principle of mutual inspection. Some years ago when we were taking the protocol to the chemical weapons convention through the House, I remember that some on the Conservative Benches wanted to argue that, although inspection was fine for countries that one could not trust, it was unacceptable for countries such as Britain which everyone would trust.
	We are conscious that in the United States at present the issue of inspection of chemical plants—private sites which are, however, fully capable of producing chemical weapons under contract—is one of the most sensitive issues in the whole American approach to arms control. We are also conscious that if one is talking about the overlap between public and private, the question of what happens to some weapon systems in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia flown out by private transport planes to various parts of the Middle East and Africa is an issue with which we would want to be concerned. Therefore, the principle of mutual inspection is extremely important.
	Can the Minister confirm that the principle of mutual inspection extends not only to British bases in Britain but also, I assume, to American bases in Britain, although not to American bases in the continental United States, which is outside the designated area? After all, CFE is in the context of a broader transformation of European security, which links to NATO at one end and the OSCE at the other.
	As the Minister remarked in her opening speech, we are all concerned about the problems of the southern flank and in particular the failure of Russian forces to withdraw from the two bases in Georgia and Transdnistria. It is right to say that, although we should move through the process of ratification, we should not complete ratification until we have further assurances on that scale.
	Further, are the Government thinking of redefining peacekeeping in the Caucasus and around the edge of the Soviet Union, which is now under CIS auspices, the arrangements made by the former Soviet Union, Russia and its new partners. It seems to many of us that it would be entirely correct to try to bring the question of Russian peacekeeping forces in Abhazia and elsewhere within the framework of the OSCE, or even of the United Nations. I am rather disappointed, as are many others, at how inactive European governments and forces have been in those flanking regions. I note that American forces are now training Georgian armed forces, not European forces. My understanding was that there were a number of British military observers in Abhazia some years ago. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether they are still there.
	I have one final question. As always in complex Bills such as this, there are references to their application to the British Overseas Territories, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar and, on this occasion, the sovereign bases in Cyprus. I emphasise that the whole question of how far British legislation applies to those different overseas territories confuses many of us in this House. It seems to raise large questions as to how far those overseas territories pick and choose which bits of legislation apply. I give the Minister notice that I intend to table a Question asking how the Government are accountable to Parliament for their management of the external relations of those various European overseas territories.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to the question of Orders in Council. The exact wording in Clause 2(2) of the Bill seems to be appropriate and constructive in that respect. This is an Order in Council which has to be submitted for a positive vote by resolution of each House of Parliament. That seems to be the way forward. A negative resolution would not be appropriate in this measure, but an affirmative resolution is entirely appropriate.
	With those remarks, we are very happy to accept the Second Reading of the Bill.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, I too support the Bill. It is important to know that we are dealing here with four documents—treaties, protocols or agreements. The Bill is full of references to subsection (2)(a) or (3)(b), or whatever, in the other documents. I found it a painful exercise trying to sort out exactly what the Bill does.
	That brings me to the Explanatory Notes. They are absolutely vital in sorting out what references are involved from document A to document B. But they do not help us to understand what the Bill is about in reality. I would have found that extremely helpful. I spent a painful day yesterday trying to work the issues out, especially as I did not have all the documents with me. I make the humble suggestion that with a Bill of this complexity, it would be useful if the Explanatory Notes were intelligible to and helpful to Members of this House who perhaps are not so well informed as some other people. Most noble Lords do not have research assistants. We are not endowed with the same resources in that connection as are Members of the other place.
	I want to make four brief points. I would like to know why the view was taken in the 1991 Act that rights of entry were not required for inspections of declared sites because they were wholly or mainly owned and operated by the Ministry of Defence. The lay person—I am a lay person in this context—would have expected those sites, if owned by the Ministry of Defence, to be subject to inspection. That seems to me rather surprising. No doubt there is a simple explanation.
	Then there is the question of ratification. The noble Baroness in introducing the Bill explained the position about Moldova and Georgia. Can she say more about that? Do we expect Russia to comply with its obligations? Can we look forward with confidence to the ratification of this Bill in the near future, or are there any difficulties?
	I support my noble friend Lady Rawlings on Clause 2(1). I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the Bill as it stands is satisfactory. Many years ago I remember when I was a law student reading Lord Hewart's The New Despotism. His objections to altering primary legislation by Orders in Council are still valid. I deplore the fact that we have yet another case of this Government introducing such a provision. It is the second bad precedent which we have seen now in a very short time.
	My last point relates to Gibraltar. No doubt there is a simple answer, but it is not clear from the Explanatory Notes. Paragraph 17 of the notes states:
	"The Government of Gibraltar passed its own Ordinance to give effect to the Act".
	That is the Act of 1991. That presumably means that Gibraltar is subject to inspections. I do not know how the inspection teams are made up. It would have been helpful to have that set out in the Explanatory Notes. Suppose that an inspection team includes a Spanish representative. Would he be inspecting defence installations in Gibraltar?

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am glad that I did not manage to pre-empt my noble friend Lord Blaker because I was going to make exactly the same point. I find Schedule 1 extremely difficult to comprehend, not being totally au fait with the original 1990 treaty.
	I ask the Minister whether she can produce outside the Bill a Keeling schedule because Schedule 1 to the Bill makes quite simple amendments, if one can get the Act together, to Sections 1 and 2 of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Act 1991. It would be not beyond the wit of her department to achieve a composite whole that would answer the problems that both my noble friend Lord Blaker and myself have identified.
	I disagree with my own Front Bench and with my noble friend on the subject of Clause 2 of the Bill and agree with the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches. It seems to me that the changes to a treaty—although they do not arise often—do not need primary legislation. That is an excellent reason for doing them by order, as long as—and I take the point—the order is to be agreed affirmatively by both Houses of Parliament.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have adopted such a positive attitude towards the Bill. I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, about the cross-referencing of the Bill to other treaties and measures. I sympathise with his remarks about the Explanatory Notes.
	Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and others, that we might have a meeting with officials on some of the technical parts of the Bill. We could then go through what I believe will not be great areas of difficulty between us and offer some explanations on what I do not think is a contentious Bill as to the politics of the situation. That might help to shed a little light on how the new regime will work.
	The noble Baroness was quite right when she said that the reason behind this measure was to get a better grasp of inspections on private company sites. It is not only that part that is new, but, as I believe I said in my opening remarks, it is also in order to have better access to some larger sites which were not covered in the previous legislation.
	The noble Baroness asked whether I could give her some examples of private sites within military areas. There would be such things as base repair facilities, which are often civilian owned, or contract training facilities. Some MoD training—for example helicopter training—is contracted out to private firms. So it would be access to those kinds of facilities which is not currently covered.
	The Bill is not designed to give access to RAF disused sites, which was an example that the noble Baroness might have suggested. Treaty-limited equipment is not kept on those sites and therefore they are not objects of verification under the CFE.
	There is a little more controversy around Clause 2 of the Bill. That allows for future amendments to the 1991 Act to be made by Order in Council rather than by primary legislation. The power will be limited to amendments of the 1991 Act relating to inspections but a memorandum was sent to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee when the Bill was introduced last week. I am very willing to listen to what the committee says about the proposed changes. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that this is not particularly controversial, but I accept that the noble Baroness and others have expressed some misgivings about it. I think that we should listen carefully to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and consider what it has to say about the matter.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, did the Minister say that she disagreed with me? I have just agreed with the Government's position on the Bill.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I said that I disagreed with the noble Baroness but agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, whom I took rather gratefully to be on my side on this point. I accept that others have misgivings about the matter. I am happy to look at those misgivings in relation to what the committee will say in due course.
	I turn to the point on ratification raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I think that we are all agreed that we are not in a position to ratify the adapted treaty yet. At Istanbul on 19th November, the then Foreign Secretary said:
	"We would hope to ratify it early, but the time at which we do so will depend on the level of all parties' compliance with the limits that have been agreed".
	The agreed NATO position as stated at Reykjavik on 14th and 15th May this year is:
	"We can envisage ratification of the Adapted CFE Treaty only in the context of full compliance by all States Parties with agreed treaty limits and consistent with the commitments contained in the CFE Final Act".
	As we have all remarked, Russia has outstanding commitments—known as the Istanbul commitments—in connection with Georgia and Moldova. It is important that we rest on not ratifying until those positions become clearer.
	In answer to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, at the Prague summit last week the UK and other NATO allies pressed for swift fulfilment of the outstanding Istanbul commitments by Russia. We said that we thought that that would create the conditions for allies and other states parties to move forward on ratification of the Act. If the noble Lord would like me to go into detail on what has and has not been complied with, I am happy to do so, but perhaps it would be helpful to do that privately later.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about Chechnya, which is of course different again from Moldova and Georgia, because we recognise the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation and the right of and obligation on the Russian Government to defend their citizens there. However, Russian military operations in Chechnya must respect the rule of law and human rights obligations.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked whether United States bases in the United Kingdom are open to inspection. Yes, they are, as are US bases elsewhere in Europe.
	Interesting questions were raised about Cyprus and Gibraltar. Extension of the legislation to overseas territories would have to be done by Order in Council, as it was in relation to the 1991 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, was right to say that that is how it was done in relation to that Act. Gibraltar would be subject to inspections generally, but NATO allies do not inspect each other's territories, so the fears expressed by the noble Lord in respect of Spain can be safely allayed.
	I hope that that has answered most of your Lordships' questions about the Bill.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, to clarify, I did not mention Chechnya.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sorry. I understood the noble Baroness to have raised the question of Chechnya in relation to the other territories that caused her concern: Moldova and Georgia. I am sorry if I misunderstood her point.
	I hope that your Lordships agree that the Bill is necessary for the UK to be able to ratify the treaty. I assure your Lordships that it will not be brought into force until the time is right and I look forward to debating it further in Committee.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am sure that my noble friends will be grateful, as I am, for the offer of discussions with her officials on the detailed comparison of the Bills, but there is no substitute for hard copy.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Indeed, my Lords, there is no substitute for hard copy, and I should be happy to provide briefing papers in advance of such a meeting. I make that offer in the spirit that there is a general view that the Bill is necessary, that there are no major points of controversy between us, and that it is a matter of sorting out the exact implications of the Bill.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Functions of Traffic Wardens (Amendment) Order 2002

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [39th Report, Session 2001–02, from the Joint Committee].

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the draft order has been laid in consequence of Section 44 of the Police Reform Act 2002. Its approval is important as part of advancing our measures under the reform agenda to ensure that the police can focus efficiently and effectively on their core functions.
	Section 44 removes existing restrictions on the power of traffic wardens to stop vehicles. The provision relates solely to traffic wardens employed by police authorities—not, for example, local authority parking wardens. Along with the Act's provisions for community support officers and accredited community safety officers, it will come into effect on 2nd December.
	Although the Act enables community support officers and accredited community safety officers to perform certain functions, traffic wardens can exercise their powers for functions prescribed by the Secretary of State only in a functions of traffic wardens order. The draft order before us amends the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970, as amended, to enable them, from 2nd December, to use their extended power for two specified purposes.
	Article 2 of the draft order provides that for those purposes, references to a constable in Sections 67(3) and 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 include references to a traffic warden. Those sections deal with the power to stop vehicles specifically for testing purposes and the general power to stop vehicles. Currently, traffic wardens' powers to stop vehicles are limited strictly to the regulation of traffic.
	Prior to the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was kind enough to raise with me the issue of whether, by these or amending regulations, traffic wardens would be given power to stop cyclists who, for example, rode on the pavement or the wrong way down a one-way street. Because the noble Lord raised the matter with me previously, I have been able to take advice on the issue and I am advised that that power, which he wants traffic wardens to have, is already given to them in their power to stop vehicles for the regulation of traffic. So I am advised that that power already exists.
	Article 3(2) of the order prescribes two functions for which traffic wardens can use the powers. Under the Police Reform Act 2002, community support officers and accredited community safety officers, who may, for example, be local authority employees, will also be able to fulfil those functions. First, traffic wardens will be able to stop vehicles for road-worthiness and emissions tests under the provisions of Section 67(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Secondly, traffic wardens will be able to escort abnormal loads authorised by the Secretary of State under Section 44(1)(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. At present, they cannot do that because they do not have the general power to stop other vehicles, which may be required.
	For the conduct of tests, at present only a constable in uniform can stop vehicles. The police are not always able to assist in that way and we recognise that police involvement in such checks may not be seen to be the most effective use of police resources. That amendment will help to reduce demands on the police and benefit the Vehicle Inspectorate and local authorities by enabling them to have more reliable service provision.
	The movement of abnormal loads is controlled by orders made under Section 44 of the 1988 Act. Under those orders, hauliers moving abnormal loads have to notify each force whose areas they pass through. The force then decides whether or not an escort is necessary; there are no statutory obligations. The police have been pressing to be relieved of that non-core function and the Association of Chief Police Officers issued new guidance last year to reduce their involvement. It has been reduced by more than 20 per cent with no reported problems. In some cases, however, the exercise of police powers to direct and stop traffic is needed. It may be necessary, for example, to instruct other vehicles to stop or to move aside while a load passes, or to instruct a load to go the wrong way round a roundabout.
	Traffic wardens already have the power to direct traffic; enabling them to stop vehicles will enable them to undertake escorting duties or to work in teams to facilitate the movement of abnormal loads that would otherwise require an escort. That will help to reduce police involvement in the escorting of abnormal loads. It will also provide a more guaranteed service for hauliers, who at present have to wait until each force whose area they pass through can provide an escort.
	As I mentioned, provisions in the Police Reform Act 2002 will make it possible for community support officers and accredited community safety officers to have a limited power to stop and direct traffic for the purposes of escorting. It will be for individual chief officers to decide whom to appoint as community support officers, whom to accredit and for what purposes to use them.
	The Department for Transport and ACPO are also currently working with the haulage industry on the best arrangements for the management of abnormal loads on the roads, including the possibility of self-escorting. Any new arrangements will take full account of training needs, health and safety issues and good operational practice in relation to such issues as relations with other agencies and road users.
	The final part of the draft order removes the existing prohibition on traffic wardens directing traffic from a moving vehicle. This is no longer appropriate if traffic wardens are used for escorting duties. The draft order extends the potential roles in which traffic wardens can be used. By so doing, it supports our other measures, such as the introduction of community support officers and accredited community safety officers to provide chief officers of police with a means to help reduce the burden on the police of work unrelated to crime and public order. This frees up police time for their core functions, facilitates the enforcement of other legislation, promotes road safety and provides a better service to other interests. Such outcomes are an essential part of our police reform programme. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [39th Report, Session 2001–02, from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we have no objection to the order. For clarification, how do the functions of community support officers and ACSOs differ from those of traffic wardens? Do they have the power to stop vehicles, or is it solely limited to directing heavy loads?

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I have roughly the same question. I understand that community support officers and accredited persons can have such powers as are conferred on them by chief officers of police. The situation is confused. In places where there is special parking area status there are no traffic wardens, or they have quickly been withdrawn by the police in favour of local authority-employed wardens, who act as parking wardens.
	I have no objection to the proposals and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for clarifying the position of cyclists. However, we shall probably need some general notification of what community support officers and accredited persons can do; otherwise, each chief officer may give different powers to different people. That could lead to confusion on what powers people have. Some thought needs to be given to that, although it does not apply under the order that we are considering.
	We welcome the order, which will free up some police time to be used on other matters. The issue of escorting abnormal loads has been under consideration for a considerable time with the road haulage industry. It should be resolved as quickly as possible. Thought has been given to giving that duty to the AA, the RAC or some other responsible body, provided the people concerned are properly trained.
	We certainly do not oppose the order, but we want the duties of CSOs and accredited persons to be codified in some way so that people will know where they stand.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, community support officers and accredited community safety officers already have the relevant powers—under Schedule 4 to the Police Reform Act 2002 for community support officers and under Schedule 5 of that Act for accredited community safety officers. As I said in my opening remarks, traffic wardens have only such powers as are conferred on them by orders such as these. In a sense we have brought them into line.
	I note what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, says about clarity on who has what powers. Schedules 4 and 5 set out the powers of community support officers and accredited community safety officers respectively and orders such as this set out the powers of traffic wardens. I accept that people need to go through a bit of a legislative maze to find out what they are. How they are used in practice will depend on the chief constable in each area. We have to see how that develops over time.
	I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for the order in principle.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Release of Short-Term Prisoners on Licence (Amendment of Requisite Period) Order 2002

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th October be approved [40th Report, Session 2001–02, from the Joint Committee].

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the purpose of the order, which I move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Filkin, is to lengthen from 60 days to 90 days the maximum curfew period spent by prisoners released on home detention curfew on electronic tag.
	Home detention curfew offers eligible prisoners the opportunity to spend the final part of their sentence on curfew at their home address, or another suitable approved address. During the curfew period, which is usually between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., they are electronically monitored by means of a tagging device and may not leave their home. The monitoring equipment is extremely reliable. The tag cannot be removed without damaging it and has tamper proof mechanisms which operate in such a way that all damage is reported immediately to the tagging contractors. Curfewees who breach the curfew are recalled to spend the remaining custodial period of their sentence in prison.
	At present prisoners serving sentences of between three months and under four years may be released on home detention curfew for up to 60 days before their normal release date, subject to serving one quarter of their sentence in custody. That means that the full 60-day period applies to all prisoners sentenced to periods of eight months or more. The order will increase that maximum to 90 days, still subject to prisoners serving a quarter of the sentence period in custody. In practice therefore, the full 90-day period will apply to all prisoners serving sentences of one year or more.
	The Home Secretary announced the Government's intention to increase the curfew period in February this year but wanted to assess properly the impact of the presumptive home detention curfew scheme, launched in May, before moving ahead with the proposal.
	Under the presumptive home detention curfew scheme, introduced on 1st May this year, prisoners serving sentences of between three months and less than one year are released on home detention curfew for the latter part of their sentence unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. Drug dealers, violent offenders and prisoners with any history of sex offending are not eligible to be considered for release under the presumptive scheme.
	The Prison Service has an overriding duty to protect the public and no prisoner can be placed on home detention curfew without first passing a risk assessment. The legislation also contains a statutory list of exclusions, including those required to register under the Sex Offenders Act 1997.
	Since the scheme began in January 1999, over 60,000 people have been released on home detention curfew and 90 per cent of those have successfully completed the curfew period without any problems. Fewer than 3 per cent of curfewees are reported to reoffend while on curfew. Home detention curfew is cost-effective, freeing up about £37 million a year for use in other regime interventions.
	The Home Secretary has statutory powers to recall any curfewee who breaches his curfew conditions or presents a risk of serious harm. Any offending by a curfewee is also a breach of their licence and can lead to recall to prison. Where home detention curfew is supervised by the probation service—in the case of young offenders and those serving 12 months or more—it provides a valuable tool for probation officers in influencing the behaviour of former prisoners. It can be used to keep offenders out of trouble when they are most likely to get into trouble. Home detention curfew requires curfewees to develop self-discipline and so can bring order to disordered lives. Therefore, in the light of the experience of the scheme and the presumptive scheme, which are both working well, we feel that now is the right time to increase the curfew period.
	Finally, I shall say a word about the population pressures on our prisons, which noble Lords will be aware of. Although not its primary purpose when first introduced, home detention curfew plays an important role in managing the prison population by reducing overcrowding at the same time as improving the resettlement opportunities for less serious offenders. Already 2,500 people who would otherwise be filling prison places are serving the last part of their sentence on home detention curfew.
	We expect that the extension of the curfew period will release around a further 600 prison spaces—the equivalent of a medium-sized prison. In all cases releases will take place only after an assessment of the risks, including the likelihood of the prisoner concluding home detention curfew successfully. No prisoner is released when he or she is assessed as posing a risk to public safety.
	In conclusion, home detention curfew has been very successful in providing prisoners with a smoother and more effective reintegration back into the community, enabling prisoners to be released from prison early while still subject to restrictions placed on their liberty. Increasing the curfew period will allow them to make that transition over a longer period and will help them resume employment or training at an earlier stage. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th October be approved [40th Report, Session 2001–02, from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we welcome the Government's conversion to the home detention curfew system that was proposed by the previous government. However, as regards the previous government, the aim was very much to monitor prisoners released from gaol at the end of their sentence. We are concerned that the present Government are using this system to cut prisoners' sentences. The Minister referred to that. We are not in favour of that being the primary purpose of the system.
	The provisions have been considerably widened. They bring with them risks. The Minister referred to the fact that 90 per cent of curfewees have completed their curfew period successfully. However, that leaves a significant 10 per cent who have not. As the Minister said, some 3 per cent of prisoners have offended while on curfew, some of those offences being serious. We shall not oppose the order but we shall watch carefully the reoffending rate and any failure to complete the curfew. It carries high risks.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we on this side of the House see no problems with the extension of the scheme for the release of short-term prisoners on licence.
	Concerns have been expressed in the other place and also in your Lordships' House about prison overcrowding. One simply has to refer to the response to the gracious Speech last week when a number of noble Lords spoke about the unacceptable number of prisoners in our penal institutions. What overall strategy have the Government in mind to reduce overcrowding? The Minister indicated that the measure we are discussing would help that aim. Is the draft statutory instrument part of the strategy? Or is it a reaction to the recent publicity that Britain's gaol population is expected to rise above 100,000 for the first time in history?
	The number of people serving prison sentences over the next decade will increase by over 40 per cent, putting an intolerable burden on the Prison Service. Can the Minister say whether those projected figures are based on official forecasts of prison numbers from Home Office experts and from the Office for National Statistics? Is the forecast by the probation service that an extra 30 gaols will be needed at an estimated cost of £2 billion correct? That is something I picked up from a newspaper headline.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I may have misheard the noble Lord but I thought that he mentioned an estimate of 30 years.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I referred to 30 gaols, not 30 years. That would be too long a period. I do not know what size the prison population will be then.
	Is it also true that nearly 500 prisoners are at present held in police cells? It is with those concerns that I ask the Minister to explain whether the statutory instrument is a measure to alleviate the present crisis.
	We are talking about extending 60 days in the community to 90 days. Would support programmes be available in the community and is the probation service adequately resourced towards meeting these needs? Have we any statistics of reoffending rates of people who are tagged? I am aware that short-term prisoners do not have probation supervision if their sentences last less than 12 months.
	The success of any such orders will depend on a holistic approach undertaken by the probation service, social workers and voluntary agencies such as NACRO. I declare my interest as chairman of NACRO. Voluntary organisations are poorly resourced. The success of the statutory instrument will depend on how we assist those who will help to take pressure off our prison system. I support the Government's intention in relation to the statutory instrument.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I declare an interest as the chairman of the committee that was set up to consider the working of the parole system by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, when he was Home Secretary. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was a prominent and helpful member of that committee.
	Obviously, faced with a prison population explosion of some 72,000 people in prison at present—I believe that that is an increase of over 12,000 during the lifetime of this Government—one cannot but welcome any measure that attempts to reduce the size of that population. One cannot, therefore, be other than grateful for any proposals that reduce sentences, particularly of those serving short sentences of imprisonment.
	However, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord one or two questions that I confess are based on confusion—I am probably completely wrong—about the relationship between the home curfew and the parole systems. The noble and learned Lord may remember that the committee that proposed the parole provisions in the 1991 Act was set up due to the considerable lack of confidence of the judiciary in the parole system at that time. The complaints were basically twofold: first, that only serving a third of a sentence constituted too great a disparity with regard to the sentences passed to be acceptable. Secondly, those who carried out the day-to-day work in the Crown Courts, where the vast majority of crime is tried, found that although sentences were passed that differed in length for two offenders—as one was identified as the ringleader—the man who served six months and the man who served 18 months might well come out of prison on the same day. As I remember it, that was a cause of the loss of confidence of the judiciary in the system.
	If I understand the order correctly, it extends the period of curfew that comes before the period of automatic release at the halfway stage. I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord nods as I must admit that I was totally confused when I first read the order. The explanatory notes refer to the 1991 Act. I then discovered that the 1991 Act had been totally changed and contained no reference to this matter at all. What is the effect of the measure taken as a whole? I refer to increasing the period of curfew for those serving 12 months to a period equal to one-quarter of the term. I assume that a term of less than 12 months indicates that the sentence passed was one of 12 months or less. If they are to have a curfew of a quarter of the total sentence, they will come out, or can come out—as I understand the position, some may but some may not—at the end of three months. We are back in the situation where the judge who tries to differentiate between the sentences imposed on two prisoners appearing before him for a series, say, of housebreaking offences, will find that any attempt he makes to differentiate between the sentences can be done away with by the arbitrary decision, presumably on the advice of a prison governor, of the Home Secretary. That system is totally selective and seems to say that, although the court may have wished to differentiate between the period of imprisonment, the Government are doing away with that differentiation.
	If we say, as the order does, that, for a term of 12 months or more, a curfew may last for 90 days—three months—someone who gets 18 months, who would have come out at nine months and spent the other nine months on remission, will now be eligible to come out at six months, on the say-so of the Prison Service, without reference to the penalty imposed by the court. I hope that I make my point so that it can be understood. We are in danger of going back to the use of administrative methods of dealing with those in prison that emasculate the differences in sentences passed by the courts. I repeat: if my recollection is correct—I saw the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, nod—that was one of the reasons why there was a loss of confidence in the parole system.
	One cannot oppose any proposal to reduce the prison population, but I ask the Minister to confirm that my understanding of the situation is correct. Secondly, we should, at least, pass on a warning to the Home Office of the dangers of looking at alternative imprisonment in ways that interfere with the degree of penalty that the courts intended to pass.

Lord Windlesham: My Lords, mine, too, is a voice from the past. I declare an interest: I served as chairman of the Parole Board for England and Wales for much of the 1980s, in the period that led up to the review of the parole system by a committee headed by my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. The substantial changes in parole made by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 resulted from the structure recommended in that review and largely accepted by the then Home Secretary.
	Since then, we have seen the prison population go up and up. That is partly because of the pattern of offending, but it is also because of changes in the pressures brought about by public opinion. Judges and magistrates are not immune from such opinion. If the view is that only custodial sentences qualify as real punishment, it is natural that there will be some response. The result was a search for expedient ways of relieving the pressure on the prisons. As all the critics have said, talking up sentencing results in a demand for additional prison places. The noble and learned Lord will have found in his relatively short stay at the Home Office that it takes a long time to agree, get the money for and build new penal establishments. In the meantime, the population of sentenced offenders increases. Since the 1991 Act, there has been progressive erosion of what was, for the first time for many years, a rational and principled system of sentencing, providing for a rational system of early release.
	Tagging, once a dirty word, has become widely accepted. The Minister was entitled to claim that it has been regarded as successful. I have lived through the entire era of electronic tagging, from the first phase—when it was bitterly opposed by the Home Office—to its gradual introduction. Now, there is another fundamental change looming on the horizon. At first, the acceptance of tagging as a release mechanism was in the form of a selective scheme, conducted by prison governors, who were regarded as the people within the penal establishment who could make judgments as to who was a good risk. That placed a lot on the governors' shoulders, but, on the whole, it was successful, if measured in terms of re-offending. As the Minister said, re-offending rates were relatively low, and selection was cautiously handled.
	That system was selective, but now there is to be a major change. The words used by the Minister just now were, I think, "presumptively entitled". Prisoners serving shorter sentences—that is, under 12 months—will be presumptively entitled to early release. That is a fundamental change, from a selective system to one in which everyone will qualify, unless there are strong grounds for saying that there should be no early release. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on that analysis.
	I have one other point. I assume that the probation service will be responsible for supervising prisoners released early under home detention curfew, but I would like confirmation that that assumption is correct. I assume that it must be because, if breaches occur, they will take place in the community, and the probation service will be responsible for bringing offenders back into custody. As the Minister will have found, the probation service is still recovering from the most fundamental re-organisation in its recent history. I have two questions. What prior consultation was there with the probation service about the extension to presumptive entitlement and away from selective release? Secondly, what additional resources will be made available for the service to carry out its new responsibilities?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this short but fascinating debate.
	I shall deal first with the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. He supported—or did not oppose—the order and said that they would examine re-offending rates. The noble Viscount heard what I said about the experience that we have had already. The system is a useful method of helping people back into the community and a means of helping to manage the size of the prison population. In my opening remarks, I said that fewer than 3 per cent of curfewees were reported to have re-offended while under the curfew. I can give further figures on re-offending: 9 per cent of those given home detention curfew re-offend within six months of release. But that figure can be compared with the number of prisoners who are not given HDC and who re-offend within six months after release; namely, 40 per cent. So the comparison looks quite favourable in relation to home detention curfew.
	I am grateful for the support expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for the basic provisions of the order. He asked what are the rates of re-offending. I hope that I answered that in my reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. He asked specifically about the position in relation to prison overcrowding. It is accepted on all sides that the prisons are getting fuller and fuller. We have a strategy which covers the building of more prison places. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will have heard the announcement made some weeks ago by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that £60 million would be spent on building more prison capacity. He will be aware that in the last Budget more provision was made available.
	The noble Lord will also be aware that the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General issued a joint statement not long ago identifying people who should go to prison; namely, those who were dangerous, sexual or violent offenders and those who were guilty of seriously persistent offending; and indicating that for others the court should be more ready to consider community penalties.
	The noble Lord asked what support would be available from the probation service in relation to those on home detention curfew. Home detention curfew is supervised by the probation service where it is dealing with young offenders and those serving 12 months or more.
	The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, asked whether the probation service was consulted about the scheme. Yes, it was. He asked whether it was given extra resources. No extra resources were needed except in the very short term, and those have been provided.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, gave an entirely accurate account of how the scheme works. It means that if a person is sentenced to between three months and four years, under existing provisions he would automatically get out after serving 50 per cent of the sentence. This provision allows a person to be released up to 90 days before that 50 per cent date, subject to the limitation that a person must serve a quarter of the sentence. So the noble Lord was right in identifying 12 months—which is the minimum sentence that a person can have to get the full benefit of the 90 days, because below 12 months it would be more than a quarter. If a person was sentenced to 12 months, he would get out on the 50 per cent rule at the six-month period, but because of HDC, which can now last for three months, he could get out after three months—which is exactly the proposition put.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, raised concerns about that proposal. In effect, his proposition was that that might allow administrative procedures—he did not put it quite this way—to frustrate the intention of the court in passing the sentence. The way in which HDC would work would be subject to statutory exceptions which I outlined in my opening remarks. The prisoner would be released on HDC, subject to the governor making an assessment of risk in relation to re-offending or not complying with his curfew. So there would be that element of discretion—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.
	The provision should be applied consistently. Judges will obviously know that that is the background against which they sentence. It may have a greater impact on a shorter sentence than on a longer one. The longer the sentence, the less proportion of the sentence this will be. We think that it is sensible, so long as judges know that it is applied consistently and subject to the rules, and that it is a useful tool both in terms of managing the prison population and in terms of assisting people back into society after they have been in prison. The re-offending figures that I gave for the six months after release provide some support for that.
	In the light of those remarks, I hope that I have answered all the questions raised. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.